Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE COUNCIL OF STATE

LONDON GOVERNMENT

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported the Answer of the Counsellors of State to the Address, as follows:

We, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, acting as Counsellors of State on Her Majesty's behalf by virtue of Letters Patent dated February the 27th, 1970, have received your Address praying that the London Authorities (Transfer of Housing Estates, etc.) Order, 1970 be annulled.

We will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

[Queen's Consent, signified]

Read the Third time and passed.

GOSPORT CORPORATION BILL

LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

BARRY CORPORATION BILL

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

HAVERING CORPORATION BILL

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL
BILL

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

London Underground

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals have now been submitted to him by London Transport for the extension of the Victoria Line beyond Brixton.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has now received for the extension of the Fleet Line into South-East London from London Transport Executive.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): General responsibility for extending the London Transport network now rests with the Greater London Council, from which I have received no formal proposals.

Mr. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend prod the London Transport Executive into making proposals? Does he agree that an extension of this line to Herne Hill, West Norwood and up to Crystal Palace would make a great contribution to public transport in London? Is he aware of the need to go ahead with such a scheme before the design teams, which are still working on the line to Brixton, are broken up?

Mr. Mulley: I do not regard it as my function to prod the London Transport Executive. The fact that it has responsibility means that it must accept that responsibility. Crystal Palace is already served by British Rail, and studies made some time ago of an extension south from Brixton did not suggest that, on cost-benefit grounds, it would be justified. The Greater London Council and the L.T.E. are considering some extensions


of, for example, the Bakerloo Line to Camberwell or Peckham, but in the first instance these are essentially matters for the G.L.C.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Prod or not, will the Minister suggest to the G.L.C. that the Victoria Line should be joined up with the Central Line for the benefit of my constituents?

Mr. Mulley: I am sure that the G.L.C. is only too well aware of all the views that have been expressed in the House today.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an extension of the Fleet Line would enable the services on the Bakerloo Line to my constituency to be doubled? Will he therefore reconsider his attitude and send a prodding letter to the G.L.C., or does he feel that after 9th April we shall have a better local authority which will not need prodding?

Mr. Mulley: I am not able to forecast what may happen on 9th April, although I would not be displeased if my hon. Friend were satisfied on 10th April. This is not my responsibility. Also, to change this situation would require an Act of Parliament. One was passed only last year.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport when the underground extension from Victoria to Brixton will be open to the public; and on what date completion was originally intended.

Mr. Mulley: The extension was originally intended to be completed by 1972, but I understand that the London Transport Executive now hopes to open it in 1971, although Pimlico station will not be ready until 1972.

Mr. Lipton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It has taken about 25 years to get this extension approved, and this speeding up will be more than welcome.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the average daily number of motor cars expected to use the Channel Tunnel.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): Previous estimates by British

and French officials have indicated that the average daily flow could rise by 1985 to the order of 8,000 accompanied vehicles in both directions combined, and that peak flows in the same year could be of the order of 2,500 per hour in both directions combined. These estimates will be brought up to date in the final studies for the tunnel project.

Mr. Sheldon: I apologise for constantly pressing this matter. Is it not a fact that the figures are now totally out of date? Since this was predicated in 1960 and incorporated in the White Paper of 1963, is it not time to have a fresh assessment made of this matter and to bring the whole scheme up to date?

Mr. Murray: I have no doubt that when we reach the point of final studies on the project, the figures will be brought up to date.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the number of letters I have now sent to him from people in my constituency pressing for a decision as they cannot sell their houses because of the Channel Tunnel project?

Mr. Murray: Not only do I remember the letters I have received from the hon. Member, but I remember those I have sent in reply to him. This is a much wider question and it will be covered by a later Answer.

Train Derailments

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport how many trains were derailed in the first three months of 1970; and what was the comparable total in the first three months of 1969, 1965 and 1960, respectively.

Mr. Murray: I know the hon. Member has a high regard for my foresight, but even he will not expect me to give an answer today covering the month of March. However, the provisional figure for reportable derailments on all railways in Great Britain during January and February this year is 49. Comparable figures for 1969, 1965 and 1960 were 77, 45 and 47 respectively.

Mr. Taylor: As the Minister indicated in his reply in June last year that he was expecting an improvement towards the end of the year, in this part of a continuing improvement? When did it


begin, and does he think that it will continue?

Mr. Murray: Naturally, we hope that the improvement mentioned by the hon. Member will continue, but I think it is really too early to draw any conclusions.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would my hon. Friend agree that the chief cause of these derailments is obsolete rolling-stock in the freight division? Can he estimate what would be the total cost of replacing them?

Mr. Murray: Not without notice. Certainly, if possible, I will let my hon. Friend have the information that he requires.

Mersey Underwater Crossings

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now take over the underwater crossings of the River Mersey as a national trunk road commitment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): No, Sir.

Mr. Tilney: Since the four London bridges, the Blackwall Tunnel and, I believe, the new Thamesmead Tunnel are trunk roads, why do Her Majesty's Government end the trunk system on either side of the Mersey Tunnel, which penalises the ratepayers of Merseyside?

Mr. Brown: The question of trunk road status depends on the volume of trunk road traffic. The Mersey Tunnel is in the centre of a large conurbation and, therefore, is very poorly placed for through traffic. A high proportion of the tunnel traffic is generated locally. There is not a case for trunk road status.

Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a mater of long standing and not a new question? Does he agree that the Government should have a further look at this question in order that perhaps over a period of time there could be a phasing out of the toll system and ultimately these roads should become national trunk roads?

Mr. Brown: If traffic volumes and the generation of traffic were to alter, clearly my right hon. Friend would consider this matter, but the question of tolls is not affected by the question of trunking or not.

Road Construction

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Transport if he will seek powers to give help to local authorities towards acquiring property not needed for new roadway development but deleteriously affected by such development.

Mr. Bob Brown: I have nothing to add to what I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 3rd March.—[Vol. 797, c. 82.]

Mr. Tilney: Since as long ago as March, 1968, the late Mr. Swingler said that the Government were studying this problem, is the Minister now aware of the unfair effect of so much urban development on owners of properties just outside the land take? Will he not do something now to see that those owners are not penalised by development for the public good?

Mr. Brown: We are well aware of the situation. That is why the announcement was made on 27th February in this House. No definite proposal has been announced as yet for legislation on injurious affection. There are various possibilities, including wider powers of acquisition, insurance schemes and a better scheme to minimise environmental damage. These continue to be studied in consultation with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport what is the average time required for the planning and land acquisition stage in road construction; what consultations he is holding with a view to shortening this period; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bob Brown: On average four to five years from the date of selection of the scheme for the preparation pool or list, but there are wide variations from the average due to the size and complexity of individual schemes.
The Department has consulted the local authority associations and other bodies on proposals to amend some of the statutory procedural requirements when an opportunity for legislation occurs. Meanwhile a number of administrative improvements have been introduced within the existing law, and we are constantly


exploring with local authorities the possibility of further improvements.

Mr. Lewis: Does not that answer clearly indicate that all the new roads which have been built since hon. Members opposite got into office were planned and created by the Tory Government?—[Interruption.] That is not the main point that I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman about. Does he realise that the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates suggested that it was necessary to give better information to the public in general and to those affected and not just to publish the normal statutory advertisement? Will he think about this?

Mr. Brown: Irrespective of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, no one can deny that we are building the roads as well as planning them for the future. As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the processes are lengthy, and we are trying to shorten them all the time, but they are lengthy because the preparation, design and various statutory procedures must be properly conducted, and the right balance must be struck between the community and the individual.

Barrow Link Road

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects work to begin on the Barrow link road.

Mr. Bob Brown: A draft scheme and side road proposals were published in February. A firm starting date cannot yet be set.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that, while appreciating the great value that this road would have for Barrow, there are considerable reservations by my constituents and other people who live around the proposed route? Will he see whether he can allow a public inquiry to be held on the route which has been suggested?

Mr. Brown: The question of a public inquiry is for my right hon. Friend to decide in the light of the volume of objections received.

Ports Bill (Dock Work)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated additional cost to the taxpayer resulting from the compulsory purchase,

under the provisions of the Ports Bill, of such additional ancillary businesses falling within the ambit of the Bill on the basis that the Bristow Committee's recommendations were implemented.

Mr. Mulley: The first Report of the Bristow Committee was concerned with the definition of dock work in the Port of London. I am advised that adoption of its recommendations would not affect the number of port businesses liable to vesting under Part II of the Ports Bill.

Mr. Wilson: Would it not be a good idea if the Government made a statement on what they are to do about the recommendations of the Bristow Report, because, apart from the question of Part II of the Bill where that applies, might not Section 42 of the Transport Act also be involved as to what was and what was not dock work and the conditions of labour?

Mr. Mulley: I do not think this would have any bearing on either Section 42 or Part II of the Ports Bill. The Bristow Report and the Ports Bill deal with different subjects, and, despite what is sometimes suggested outside, the Ports Bill does not in any way alter or amend the Dock Labour Scheme. Therefore, it would not have the kind of effect the hon. Member suggests. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity is responsible for the working of the Dock Labour Scheme and for taking a decision on the Bristow Report. She is very much concerned with this matter and is receiving representations about it.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is urgent for his right hon. Friend to publish views on the Bristow inquiry and to agree to set up a public inquiry to clarify all these issues which are causing such anxiety in the transport industry?

Mr. Mulley: I shall certainly convey the hon. Member's views to my right hon. Friend, but I know that she is only too well able to look after her own affairs without assistance from me.

Crewe-Glasgow Railway Line (Electrification)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Transport if he will publish the calculations on which his decision


to permit the electrification of the Crewe-Glasgow line was based.

Mr. Mulley: No, Sir. This would not be in the commercial interest of the Railways Board.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the obvious scepticism of the right hon. Gentleman's immediate predecessor about his own assurance that the d.c.f. return on the investment would be 10 per cent. or more, should not the right hon. Gentleman think again and publish all the figures so that we can judge for ourselves?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). He asked what I thought was a very relevant and proper Question on what the rate of d.c.f. return would be. As far as I am aware, he has shown no scepticism about the answer I gave in the House on 23rd February, which was that it would be at least 10 per cent., and, indeed, might well be considerably better. I do not think that it would be proper or right to set a precedent in nationalised industry investment by making public all the figures, which would be of great interest to its competitors.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend consider working out a very long-term electrification policy for the railway comparable to the motorway plan, because decisions taken in pieces like this have adverse effects on the electric traction industry?

Mr. Mulley: I agree that it would be helpful for the electric traction industry to have a very long-term programme, but this decision is by no means a small piece. It is a very expensive project, and will be going on over several years. The decision to electrify is primarily for the Railways Board, but its total investment programme is also a matter of concern for it and ultimately for me and it is a matter of resources.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that every single example of a major electrification scheme we have had has resulted in a dramatic increase in passenger rail traffic?

Mr. Mulley: To speak of a dramatic increase is an exaggeration, but working out the figures for Weaver Junction to

Glasgow I did not take account of any enormous increase in passengers carried. I am certain that there will be some increase.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the electrification of the London to Liverpool and Manchester service has been a tremendous success, one of the most dramatic successes we have had since the war? These ill-natured attacks emanating from a Scottish hon. Member on the latest decision to extend electrification to Scotland make us even more sceptical about those who are knocking this system for purely party political reasons. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are prepared to encourage British industry to have the most efficient tools to give an efficient service to the British public, and that we welcome the steps taken by the Government?

Mr. Mulley: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I have noted his remarks. I hope that the people of Scotland will note the question asked by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne).

Motorway Construction

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the aggregate miles on 15th October, 1964, and 31st December, 1969, of those motorways in the planning programme for which no line had yet been proposed, a draft scheme published and a scheme made.

Mr. Mulley: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Ridsdale: Why is there to be such a falling off in motorway construction in the next two years? Is it not a fact that in Britain as a whole 170 miles will be started in the whole of the next two years, compared with 160 in 1968 and 169 in 1969?

Mr. Mulley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures exactly. Two interesting figures that the House might like to know are that, while in 1964 there were 286 miles in use, there are now 567, and tha, even more significant, whereas in October, 1964, the number of miles under construction was 151, as at 31st December last year it was 351.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there are enough miles of motorway in the planning stages to maintain the existing rate of road building after the next General Election?

Mr. Mulley: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. If he wants me to answer now a later Question that he has on the Order Paper, I can do so, but I think that we will be satisfied when I answer it.

Following is the information relating to Ministry of Transport motorways in England:



15th October,
1964
31st December, 1969


Line not yet published
230·5
157·4


Draft scheme published
86·2
156·6


Scheme made
235·0
100·4

In addition, the following mileages were at the stage of tenders having been invited, under construction and in use on these two dates:—


Tenders invited
…
9·3
12·4


Under construction
…
151·5
351·9


In use
…
286·4
567·4

Mr. Michael Heseltine: asked the Minister of Transport how many of the 1,000 mile motorway targets are scheduled for completion before 31st December, 1972.

Mr. Mulley: On current forecasts, the target of 1,000 miles of motorway in England and Wales should be reached by 31st December, 1972.

Mr. Heseltine: Is the Minister satisfied that the number of miles of motorway in the planning stages is sufficiently large to enable the rate of building now being achieved to he continued after 1972?

Mr. Mulley: I am satisfied on that point. As the hon. Member will have seen from the public expenditure figures, we are increasing the provision of money for road building, although once the major motorways are completed some roads might more properly be built to dual standard and not necessarily to motorway standard.

Carrier Operators' Licences (Cost)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Transport what is the percentage

increase in the cost of the operators' licence when compared with the previous carriers' licence.

Mr. Murray: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Montgomery: Is the Minister aware that the charge for the operators' licence is exorbitant? How does he reconcile that with the assurances given that no more revenue would be required to run the new system compared with the old?

Mr. Murray: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about assurances given by previous Ministers.

Mr. Montgomery: The same Administration.

Mr. Murray: What was said was that the cost of administering the new licence system would be no higher than the cost of the present one. Fees for carriers' licences were last revised in 1957. Costs have increased considerably since then, and the enforcement effort has more than doubled.

Following is the information:



Annual rate of fee per vehicle*


Class of carriers' licence
Carriers' licence 1957—Feb., 1970
Carriers' licence† from March, 1970
Operators' licence from March 1970
Per cent. increase (2)-(4)


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)





£
s.
s.
£



A
…
…
2
0
10
4
100


B
…
…
2
10
10
4
60


C
…
…

6
4
4
1,233


*Fees cover the cost of administration only.


† Carriers licensing is being phased out for light goods vehicles. After 1st December, 1970 it will apply only to vehicles over 16 tons gross weight.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that applicants for a seven-year operators' licence can pay the annual fee as it arises.

Mr. Murray: None, Sir. An applicant can ask for a shorter period if he wishes.

Mr. Mills: This is very expensive; a large sum of money is involved. There is enough of a burden at present on many of these small business people, so will the


Minister take steps to publicise this tar more?

Mr. Murray: It is a matter for the discretion of the licensing authority if an applicant asks for a shorter period. The fee represents only a small percentage of total vehicle operating costs.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the difficulties with the execution of the policy on operators' licences have been caused by the operators themselves, who have failed to apply for a licence by the appointed day?

Mr. Murray: That may well be the case. The Department has done as much as possible to publicise all aspects of the new operators' licences.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Would not the Minister agree that it is totally misleading to suggest that it was the operators' fault, since full details of the system were not announced until two weeks before the Order was brought before the House, and that was the Government's total responsibility?

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Rubbish.

Mr. Murray: No, Sir. The operators have known for a very long time—since before the 1968 Act—what would be necessary. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment.

Transport Act, 1968, Section 30 (Special Permits)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Transport how many applications for special permits have been submitted to the Traffic Commissioners under Section 30 of the Transport Act, 1968.

Mr. Bob Brown: Fifteen, Sir. Ten of these applications have been granted and four refused, and one was withdrawn.

Mr. Mills: Is not that a very small number, and is not it a great pity? Surely the Minister will agree that the use of those small vehicles, or perhaps school buses, is perhaps one way of solving the rural bus problem? Will he encourage that in the future?

Mr. Brown: There is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said with which I

disagree. We give publicity to this. The main bus operators' associations know all about the terms, the traffic area literature mentions them, and so will the proposed rural bus grant code, which will be circulated shortly to the local authority associations.

Temporary Staff

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport how many temporary staff are employed in his Department; how many of these are secured from employment agencies; and what is the increased cost to his Department over and above the cost of normal establishment rates of pay.

Mr. Mulley: My Department is currently employing 73 staff on a casual short-term basis. None of these has been secured from employment agencies. There is no cost above normal establishment rates of pay.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that that is the best score so far? Did he get these employees from the Ministry of Labour employment exchanges?

Mr. Mulley: We use local employment exchanges to obtain staff, and also advertise, where appropriate, in local newspapers.

Humber Bridge

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a further statement on his negotiations with the Humber Bridge Board for the financing of the Humber Bridge.

Mr. Bob Brown: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 17th February, discussions between official of the board and my Department are continuing. The board has been asked for details about the design of the project which will assist in further consideration of costs.—[Vol. 796, c. 70–1.]

Mr. McNamara: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there has been great confusion recently as to how this is to be financed? Even though these negotiations are going on, could he set out the principles upon which the system of financing will be based?

Mr. Brown: Normally, estuarial crossings are carried out by loan arrangements, and in this case we have said that the Department is prepared to lend part of the cost.

Mr. James Johnson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Humberside local authorities do not have sufficient money to finance the necessary infrastructure of schools, motorways and housing? Would it not be indecent of a Labour Government to refuse to support local authorities in finding this £20 million plus?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that any question of indecency comes into this. I hope my hon. Friend will bear in mind that on principal roads Hull, along with other county boroughs, gets a 75 per cent. grant. I do not think that could be called indecent.

Schools (Experimental Road Markings)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport what are the results of the experimental zig-zag markings outside schools.

Mr. Bob Brown: Indications are that the new marking is more effective than the present one.

Mr. Berry: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is desirable to have an area outside schools where parking is banned, but which could be kept purely for parents setting down and picking up children? Does he realise that this would enable the children to wait safely on the pavement instead of running about the streets, perhaps causing serious accidents?

Mr. Brown: The purpose of the markings is not to provide a facility for parents picking up and setting down children. The purpose is to keep the school entrance clear and to give drivers unrestricted visibility of the school entrance and children approaching. Much of the danger at school entrances is caused by parents who are extremely selfish in this respect.

Third London Airport

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the planning of road communications required to serve a third London airport.

Mr. Bob Brown: The Department has co-operated with the research staff of the Roskill Commission in studies of this problem. The results have been published in Volumes VII and VIII of the commission's papers, copies of which are in the Library.

Mr. Berry: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is urgent that this part of the inquiry should be kept level with the rest, particularly in view of today's report by the South East Council about the possibility of Foulness as a third London Airport? Would he not agree that it is vital that road facilities should be a central part of the report and implemented at the same time as any other recommendations?

Mr. Brown: I have indicated that this will automatically follow. The details of the study are in the commission's papers in the Library.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: What progress has been made in the improving of rail communications with the present London Airport?

Mr. Brown: That is another question.

Articulated Vehicles (Anti-Jack-Knifing Device)

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now introduce legislation making it compulsory to fit an anti-jack-knifing device to articulated vehicles.

Mr. Mulley: I hope that progress with the current investigations and trials will enable some conclusions to be reached later this year.

Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that accidents are occurring regularly and lives being lost all the time because of the lack of an anti-jack-knifing device? Would he agree that the greatest possible urgency should be adopted in dealing with this matter, to save further lives?

Mr. Mulley: It is possible to exaggerate the effect of jack-knifing on accidents. A small proportion of accidents are clearly caused in this way, but the evidence suggests that the statistics are not significantly greater for articulated lorries than for rigid lorries of a similar size. Before I make a particular device compulsory I must be satisfied that it


will work in all the circumstances. I need full-scale trials before I can be satisfied on this point, but I accept the urgency.

Sir R. Cary: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that throughout this winter accidents due to articulated vehicles jack-knifing seem to have been greater than in previous winters? How much longer are we to tolerate this dangerous vehicle?

Mr. Mulley: That sounds like a suggestion that I should ban articulated vehicles altogether. This is another question. I should certainly meet a lot of displeasure from the road haulage interests, not least those among the hon. Member's hon. Friends.

Trains (Punctuality)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now considered the report made to him for 1969 by the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain; and what action he proposes to take in the light of the committee's expression of concern at the serious and continuing unpunctuality of express trains operated by British Railways.

Mr. Murray: Yes, Sir. We have noted the concern expressed by the committee on the question of unpunctuality. The Railways Board fully recognises its management responsibility in this matter, and I am assured that it is making determined efforts to effect an improvement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend's own committee has expressed its deep concern that, despite the advances in modernisation and the closing of a number of lines, punctuality has not improved as might have been expected? Is the Minister prepared to do something about this if the British Railways Board will not?

Mr. Murray: This is a matter of management for the board. It is, quite naturally, concerned about this, and is taking action to improve punctuality.

Mr. Bagier: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that timetables published by British Railways are realistic? Will he ask the British Railways Board whether it is not asking its staff to keep to an impossible timetable?

Mr. Murray: This is a matter of day-to-day management, and I feel that it is not my right hon. Friend's job to intervene.

Motor-Car Registration Numbers

Sir G Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport how many cherished motor-car registration numbers at £5 per car were retained by motorists on transfer to new cars in 1969; and what was the total revenue from this source.

Mr. Bob Brown: I regret that this information is not readily available since no separate records are maintained of these transactions, although it could be said that some people try to "NAB" them all.

Sir G. Nabarro: While deprecating the hon. Gentleman's horrible punnery, may I ask him if he will recall that during the passage of the Vehicles and Driving Licences Bill, which became an Act in the Session of 1968–69, it was promised that the system would be retained intact. While computerisation is now in sight for renewal of licences and for new licences, could he repeat the assurance that computerisation will not affect this cherished system of motor-car numbers?

Mr. Brown: I can give that assurance. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should become so heated. After all, he has NAB 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

An Hon. Member: And 6.

Mr. Wallace: Would my hon. Friend state whether he is considering referring flagrant cases to the Monopolies Commission?

Road Bridge, Defford

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport having regard to recent surveys conducted at the road-over-railway bridge at Defford, Worcestershire, what further consideration he has now given to the 75 per cent. grant to the county highways authority for rebuilding the bridge, widening the road and approaches, and removing dangers to motorists and pedestrians over the bridge.

Mr. Bob Brown: The scheme which the county council has proposed is not considered to have sufficient priority at present. We are in touch with it about a possible interim scheme.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman recognise that "sufficient priority" is a relative term and that I might be able to convince him during 1970–71 that this matter should be elevated and that the sum of money required, £140,000, should be allocated to the authority in the interests of the preservation of life in the future? Would he bear these words of wisdom carefully in mind?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that anything the hon. Member says will elevate the scheme. What could elevate it is if the county council would see the wisdom of the proposal that we have put to it for an improvement involving a single carriageway bridge rather than a dual carriageway.

Motorways (Crosswind Hazards)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the evidence supplied to him by the Freight Transport Association on the possibility of reducing crosswind accidents on motorways by putting up windsocks; and if he will take steps to introduce such windsocks and in addition provide warning notices at the beginning of wind-danger stretches of motorway.

Mr. Bob Brown: We have asked representative organisations for comments on the need to provide more signs and possibly windsocks. We will look again at the Freight Transport Association's views in the light of the other comments received.

Mr. Roberts: Would my hon. Friend accept that this is a matter of some urgency in view of the number of accidents in which wind is a contributory factor? Could he give the House the latest available statistics showing the number of accidents in which wind has been such a factor? Would he accept that devices of this type could at least warn lorry and car drivers of the wind danger?

Mr. Brown: The statistics available do not show the urgency that my hon. Friend has expressed. It is very scant information, but a nine-month survey in four countries in 1967 showed that 0·1 per cent. of injury accidents were due to wind. As to the signs and the windsocks, we would have to keep the numbers down if they were to work.

Rail Fares

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport what representations have been made to him concerning the 10 per cent. increase in rail fares due to be enforced in April; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Mulley: Representations have related to the size and shape of the increases. In reply I have explained the Government's reasons for their decision.

Mr. Ridsdale: Why do not the Government make more investment available to British Railways? Does not the lack of investment mean that fare increases must be paid for by the poor British travelling public rather than by increased productivity in the railways?

Mr. Mulley: We are increasing the amount of investment by British Railways, but, of course, the cost of investment has to be covered too. The idea that no cost is incurred to the railways by investment is not economically sound.

Railway Stations (Passenger Facilities)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the Railways Board to improve facilities for passengers at railway stations.

Mr. Murray: No, Sir. This is essentially a matter of management for the Railways Board.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a disappointing reply, and that something will have to be done to jog the Railways Board into giving passengers the facilities they require at stations? It is not good enough to pass this off by saying that it is a day-to-day matter; the Ministry must do something about it.

Mr. Murray: My hon. Friend can make representations directly to British Rail or to the appropriate transport users consultative committee.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that one serious problem which causes hardship to old people in particular is the absence of seats in some of our splendid new stations? Will he at least discuss this matter with British Railways?

Mr. Murray: Again, this is a matter of day-to-day management for British Railways. No doubt the hon. Member has made his representations known elsewhere.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not altogether a matter for British Railways, in that the Government have reduced the capital investment programme of British Railways by nearly one-third and, as a result, curtailed the Railway Board's capacity to provide these and other much-wanted facilities?

Mr. Murray: As usual, that is an entirely different question.

Chingford and Waltham Abbey (Road Traffic)

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Transport if he will state his latest proposals for the construction of new east-west roads in the north-east outer metropolitan London area to relieve the pressure of road traffic on residential roads in Chingford and Waltham Abbey.

Mr. Bob Brown: In April, 1968, my right hon. Friend's predecessor announced the acceptance of the section of the D-ring road between A.10 and M.11 into the trunk road preparation pool. Preparatory work is continuing on this major scheme. A number of principal road schemes programmed in the area will also assist the flow of east-west traffic.

Mr. Newens: Although I realise that some progress is being made, does not my hon. Friend recognise that many residential roads are being subjected to the intolerable volume of traffic using the North Circular Road? Has not the time now arrived for him to agree to the early construction of the full length of the D-ring road?

Mr. Brown: I do not disagree with the preface to my hon. Friend's question. The completion of the preparatory work depends on the study by consultants for the Ringway 3 and the North Orbital Road.

A1, South Mimms

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the accident rates on the five-mile single carriageway stretch of the A1 road north

of South Mimms are more than three times the averages for five-mile stretches on dual carriageway sections between London and Newcastle; and if he will expedite the dualling of that section.

Mr. Bob Brown: I am aware that the accident rate on this heavily-used single carriageway section of A1 is greater than on dual-carriageway sections of the road.
We intend to publish draft proposals later this year for a dual-carriageway road to be built to motorway standards from South Mimms to Hatfield.

Sir R. Russell: That answer, as far as it goes, is welcome, but will the hon. Gentleman say what is the cause of the delay in dualling this road, as the land is already available alongside the existing roadway?

Mr. Brown: The delay was largely caused by a comprehensive traffic survey of the North-West London area which has only recently been completed. Progress on the schemes in this area has been delayed by up to 12 months pending this information.

PRIME MINISTER OF NORTHERN IRELAND (MEETING)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Prime Minister, when he next intends to meet the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to a further meeting with him to evaluate the progress made in achieving civil rights in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no plans for a meeting with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland at present, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary remains in close touch with the Northern Ireland Government on the progress of the reform programme.

Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend please try urgently to alter his plans so as to express to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that, although many of the reforms have gone through, people are concerned at the


level of personal injustice? In particular, many people feel that much of the progress which has been made will be wasted unless there is satisfaction in the case of Mr. Samuel Devenney.

The Prime Minister: I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend to represent the views of the Government and of this House to the Northern Ireland Government. There has been a remarkable progress in legislation there, including the establishment of the Commissioner for Grievances to deal with individual questions. On the point raised by my hon. Friend, I have the fullest confidence, as will the House, in Sir Arthur Young to see that every inquiry that is required is carried out ruthlessly and that justice is done.

Mr. Molloy: Will not my right hon. Friend, nevertheless, see the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to explain that the concept of decent law and order is inextricably linked with the ethic of justice being seen to be done, and that the failure of justice to be done in Northern Ireland by the Tory Unionist Government, who have indulged in prejudices against a minority of their citizens, can only make a mockery of law and order and exacerbate the state of affairs which has existed for so long in this part of the country?

The Prime Minister: The concepts of law and order and of social justice are not inseparable either in Northern Ireland or on this side of St. George's Channel, as I have urged on many occasions. What we represented to the Northern Ireland Government as essential, even though it is half a generation or perhaps 50 years behind the times, is now being carried through, and if there are individual cases, there is now machinery to look into them.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: While I deplore the death of Mr. Devenney—as I do the death of another constituent, Mr. King—does the Prime Minister realise that it was not the thought of that case that was uppermost in the minds of the youths aged 12 to 20 who attacked British troops in Londonderry during the last two days? Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that there is strong suspicion in many quarters that this case is being used as a cover by those who wish to stir up more trouble in Londonderry over Easter?

The Prime Minister: I will not deal at Question Time with individual cases; there is adequate machinery for dealing with them. If we are going into the question of what happened last summer, the Scarman Tribunal is still sitting and we shall await its report, as we did the report of the Cameron Inquiry. I believe that the Devenney case can be handled because we have now, under Sir Arthur Young, a control of the police system which will ensure that whatever needs to be inquired into—whoever is involved, whoever is favoured, whoever is hurt—will be inquired into ruthlessly, and I have full confidence that it will be so in this case.

Miss Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by Sir Arthur Young, and of the inability of Sir Arthur Young under existing legislation to do anything about the situation with which he is dissatisfied, and that that is the crux of the problem upon which I have been trying to see him for the past 12 hours?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is right in referring to statements made by Sir Arthur Young in which he expressed regret about the adequacy of the information available to the police in Northern Ireland, but I have every confidence that Sir Arthur Young will get at the facts in this case, and I think he will get them without the help either of the hon. Lady or of myself.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady had a rather cold night. It was no fault of mine, because she knows, in common with any other hon. Member of the House—in fact she did see the Home Secretary for half an hour last night on these matters—that if in the normal way she, like any other hon. Member, had wanted to see me, she would have got what she is getting, for what it is worth—an interview at four o'clock today. But in that interview I cannot go beyond what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said to her at eight o'clock last night.

Captain Orr: Now that the Ulster Government's legislation on reform is all on the Statute book at Stormont, is it not the clear duty of the Government here and now to give the maximum support, both moral and military, to bringing


about a state of peace in Northern Ireland and not to be deterred from that course by malicious people who seek to stir up trouble?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct that much of the reform programme for which we have been pressing for four or five years is on the Statute Book. Other parts of it are through the Northern Ireland Commons and await further parliamentary procedures. Other reform programmes are at present before the Commons in Northern Ireland. I am glad that this has happened. It has been our duty to preserve law and order. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman must search back to see how far the responsibility for these matters is due to the fact that these things have had to be pressed by a Labour Government on the Northern Ireland Government in the last five years. Our problem is to make good in a matter of months what the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his party failed to do in 50 years.

Mr. Thorpe: Would not an equally beneficial result flow from the party belonging to Major Chichester-Clark, both here and at Stormont, giving him backing in what he is trying to do?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. If occasionally I am a little rough on hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter, I recognise the pressures which they are under, both the Westminster Members and the Stormont Members, because of an utterly evil campaign on the part of people who are, if it is possible to conceive it, to the right even of those hon. Gentlemen, and who are trying to put them out of their seats.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the conclusion reached in the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration 1969–70 relating to matters excluded from the Parliamentary Commissioner's investigation; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to what my right hon.
Friend the Minister without Portfolio said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) on 17th March.—[Vol. 798, c. 100–1.]

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the high proportion of complaints relating to personnel cases which came in last year and which no doubt are still coming in? Will he see that this matter is treated with some urgency?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, about 10 per cent. of new cases received by the Parliamentary Commissioner were rejected under the exclusions which have been commented upon in the distinguished report by the hon. Gentleman's Committee. Obviously, we pay great attention to the authority of the Committee over which the hon. Gentleman presides, but we have not yet reached a decision on the matter.

Mr. Rose: Apart from broadening the scope of the matters which may be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, would my right hon. Friend carefully consider the Swedish system, whereby the Commissioner on his own initiative can investigate matters and so keep both Ministers and civil servants permanently on their toes?

The Prime Minister: I think the right thing is what the House has decided; namely, that the Parliamentary Commissioner should operate within the Act laid down by this Parliament, with the exclusions, and there must be certain exclusions. We have the further safeguard of a Select Committee of this House which receives reports from the Ombudsman. I believe this to be the best system. But since the Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has made suggestions for widening the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner, then obviously it is for the Government to consider this matter with the respect that we feel for that Committee.

HONOURS SYSTEM AND MINISTERIAL PATRONAGE

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what further steps he


intends to take to limit the Honours system and to reduce the scope of Ministerial patronage.

The Prime Minister: Both the Honours system and the practice as regards appointments made by Ministers are kept under continuous review.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of producing statistics comparing the situation in 1964 with the present situation, which is causing some disturbance in all parts of the House? Will he consider the advisability of having a public register giving the names of people who are benefiting from this patronage and also giving the salaries, so that the public might judge the situation?

The Prime Minister: I take full responsibility for the recommendations made in reference to the Honours system. With regard to Government appointments, statutory legislation lays the duty on various of my right hon. Friends, although, of course, they consult me before a final decision is made. I am prepared to defend our record in this matter, not least—what I believe to have been right, though it has caused a good deal of feeling on the benches behind me—the abolition of the political Honours system. I believe that the appointments made both in respect to top appointments, whether in the diplomatic or home service or in the nationalised industries, and also recommendations made to Her Majesty in respect of Honours, will stand comparison with the record of any previous Prime Minister.

Mr. Sharples: Would the Prime Minister not agree that the number of direct Ministerial appointments, both paid and unpaid, outside the Civil Service has now risen to a figure of over 50,000? Does he think that is right?

The Prime Minister: I have seen many different figures, and a very large figure was true when the hon. Gentleman was himself a Minister under the previous Government. I will certainly justify the appointments for which I have been responsible, and will justify them on nonparty or all-party grounds since a considerable number of former Conservative Ministers have been appointed to some of these posts, each on merit and nothing to do with politics, as well as a number of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Prime Minister consider, in looking into this matter, whether there is any way in which people who desert this country in order to avoid taxation or who support the rebel government in Rhodesia could have their Honours withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: I think that there has already been a statement made in another place on one particular individual, if that is the person my right hon. Friend has in mind.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister when he will next take the Chair at the National Economic Development Council.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) on 17th March.—[Vol. 798, c. 105.]

Mr. Marten: Against the background of the widespread pre-election bonanza which so many people are now enjoying, would the Prime Minister discuss with the N.E.D.C. the serious report produced by some of his erstwhile advisers who are now with the Child Poverty Action Group, that the gap between the poor and the rest is not being narrowed?

The Prime Minister: In regard to the hon. Gentleman's reference to a bonanza, I would refer him to an interesting article and chart in the Financial Times this morning, which shows the whole progress of the electoral-political cycle under the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member—[Interruption.]—I resent these interruptions. I thought that the hon. Gentleman, then and now, was one of the most distinguished adornments to his party. I could not understand why his right hon. Friend dropped him from the Front Bench since he is far better than the lot now sitting on the Front Bench opposite. With regard to the Child Poverty Action Group, this matter was dealt with fully by my right hon. Friend, I am sorry to say, after last week's Question on this matter, in a television programme. But I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the telediphone recording.

Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this Government have done more to deal with genuine poverty than any Government that have ever existed? Is it not also true that certain newspaper reports, for example, the Sunday Times this weekend, have grossly exaggerated statements which were made, and that a careful analysis of those statements shows that they were quite different from the headline which appeared in that newspaper?

The Prime Minister: I thought that my hon. Friend saw off the Sunday Times as regards that article on Sunday. I am not responsible for newspaper reports, but—[An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] I am trying to get on with it, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are tempting me. I was not even responsible for the hysterical article by the Leader of the Opposition in the Daily Mail this morning. Knowing how rattled he is becoming, my fear was that it was not written, as usual, by his scriptwriters; I fear that he wrote it himself.
With regard to the more serious question on family poverty—[Interruption.] I know how happy right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are to return to it. With our action in first of all abolishing the earnings rule for widows which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite refused for 13 years, and making the 20 per cent. increase in the real value of old-age pensions and other benefits, and then our action, which was not popular—and which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can use on the doorsteps—about family allowances, we have successively dealt with the main aspects of poverty in the country, and we shall do more over the next five years.

Mr. Heath: While we are all delighted that the Prime Minister had time this morning to read the article in the Daily Mail and sufficient time afterwards to think out the statement that he has just made, no doubt he will also have found a little time to read the reports in The Times, the Financial Times and The Guardian of the warning which the I.M.F. has given the Government that the balance of payments surplus which may have been achieved will be endangered by the wages spiral which is going on at the moment. Without accepting the obviously circumstantial language in which those reports

have been reported, will the Prime Minister repeat this warning to the country?

The Prime Minister: As for reading the article which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be glad that I have read, it was so over-written and in such small print that it was very difficult to read. But at any rate what I read of it was hysterical and rattled.
With regard to the reports, I cannot be responsible for newspaper reports about the I.M.F. I know that the I.M.F., which came here to see whether we were conducting satisfactorily our £300 million pledge on the balance of payments, is now satisfied that we are running at a surplus of more than £500 million. I recall the Leader of the Opposition saying in the debate on the last Budget Statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of this very long article in the Daily Mail, and he is going to get it now. In the I.M.F. context, I remember his saying in the last Budget debate that it was impossible that we could reach our balance of payments pledge, and producing a most gloomy view.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's latest question—

Mr. Heath: Ah!

The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. Gentleman want me to answer it?

Mr. Heath: Yes.

The Prime Minister: Always looking for some little dark cloud in the sky, hoping that it has got an electoral silver lining for him, the right hon. Gentleman is now concentrating on the wage situation. I can tell him that we remain as competitive in relation to other countries which have also got a wage situation as we here. The right hon. Gentleman, who has shifted his ground from one point to another, will get no satisfaction out of this one.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister really saying that a document of the importance of the I.M.F. report has not been made available to him? If it has been made available to him, is he saying that he has not read it? If he has read it, is he denying that the warning was given to the Government about the present


wage spiral? If he is not denying it, will he give that warning to the country?

The Prime Minister: Of course I have read what the I.M.F. has said. But if the right hon. Gentleman wants a balanced statement, it will consist of 85 per cent. encomium and congratulations to the Government on what we have done, contrary to everything that the right hon. Gentleman said we would do, and a certain anxiety on the wage question—

Mr. Heath: Ah!

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, who has opposed every prices and incomes policy in the Division Lobby and outside it, is now saying "Ah". I would like him now to say "Ah" to the 95 per cent. encomium from the I.M.F. Let us see what he really has to say.

Mr. Heath: Let the Prime Minister publish the I.M.F. report, and we shall be able to judge for ourselves the percentage of the various make-ups of it.
As for the abandonment of the prices and incomes policy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did that in his Budget speech with the express proviso that there would be legislation to deal with the industrial relations problem, which the Prime Minister abandoned.

The Prime Minister: I must correct that. We have published far more information on this question than the right hon. Gentleman's Government ever did. The right hon. Gentleman is in the unhappy position that, when he was in charge of these affairs under the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), who, with an £800 million deficit, said that the country—[Interruption.] No doubt it was the Leader of the Opposition who drafted for his right hon. Friend the phrase
… the economy has seldom, if ever, been more strong …
with an £800 million deficit. Now they have to learn to live with a £500 million surplus, and, in his usual nit-picking way, the Leader of the Opposition tries to find any small grain of comfort for himself.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must resist the blandishments of the House.

BLACKPOOL (UNEMPLOYMENT)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement about the rates of unemployment in the Blackpool area in January, 1963, 1964 and 1970, respectively.

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister, to answer Question Q5.

Sir F. Bennett: That will be a change.

The Prime Minister: It would be a change if I did not get a great number of irrelevant supplementary questions from the Leader of the Opposition.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) for giving me the opportunity to amend the figures I gave on 17th February. For the Blackpool travel-to-work area the figures for total registered unemployed were 6·1 per cent. in January, 1963, 5·2 per cent. in January, 1964 and 5·3 per cent. in January 1970. The figures for wholly unemployed for these months were 5·6 per cent., 5·1 per cent. and 5·1 per cent.—[Vol. 796, c. 206–9.]

Mr. Blaker: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making that correction.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to write to me immediately afterwards. As he knows, the figures which I gave were the figures supplied to me. However, I take responsibility for the answer, and as soon as I saw his very authoritative comment——

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Cogent.

The Prime Minister: Cogent, yes. The hon. Gentleman had done his homework. That is what I am saying. I wrote to him saying that I accepted his point, that he was free to use my letter at the time, and that perhaps he would, in consulation with me, put down a Question, when I would be happy to give the accurate figures in the House. I am grateful to him for drawing this to my attention.

NEW MEMBER

James Sillars, Esquire, Member for South Ayrshire, made the Affirmation required by Law.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1970.
And to the following Measures, passed under the provision of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:
Collegiate Churches (Capital Endowments) Measure, 1970.
Sharing of Church Buildings Measure, 1970.

NORTHERN IRELAND (INCIDENTS, DERRY)

Miss Devlin: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The three consecutive nights of violence in Derry, Northern Ireland, on 21st, 22nd and 23rd March, all involving units of the British Army, the cause of this fresh outbreak of violence, and the necessity of the House taking immediate action to defuse the situation.
I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for taking this step on the second day in succession. I assure you that it is out of no wish to disrupt the business of the House, but because I sincerely feel that this matter requires the immediate and urgent attention of the House.
I intend to be brief. I should have preferred to raise this matter on a Private Notice Question, but—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot refer to a Private Notice Question which has been disallowed.

Miss Devlin: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
For the past three nights in Derry there has been repeated violence, growing in intensity every night. Neither I, nor any hon. Member of this House, can be of the opinion that these incidents are without motive. I believe that we cannot, nor should we, ignore these incidents in the hope that they will go away. It is my firm belief that one of the major reasons for these disturbances stems—

Captain Orr: On a point of order. Yesterday, the hon. Lady made a submission to you, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where was the hon. Gentleman?"]—on the proposition that you allow an Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. On that occasion the hon. Lady made a very long speech, the subject of which was not in order in this House—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must allow the Chair to decide whether a submission is in order.

Captain Orr: The point that I was making——

Mr. Howie: On a point of order. Is it in order to interrupt one point of order with another?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is on a point of order.

Captain Orr: The point that I was making was that there was no Ministerial responsibility for the subject raised by the hon. Lady yesterday—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to go back to a Ruling which the Chair made yesterday which is finished with.

Captain Orr: I am not questioning the Ruling, Sir. I am saying that it is relevant to today. The hon. Lady appears to be embarking upon a speech about a subject which may or may not be in order in this House—[Interruption.] Surely, when making an application under Standing Order No. 9, it is not in order to discuss the subject which could be raised if the Motion for the Adjournment of the House were allowed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order during a submission under Standing Order No. 9, to debate the issue which any hon. Member will be allowed to debate if the Motion is allowed. The Chair must judge the submission. Miss Devlin.

Miss Devlin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that one of the substantial reasons for the recurrence of violence in Derry is the unsatisfactory nature of the police inquiry into the Devenney case——

Captain Orr: Captain Orr rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ruled on that submission yesterday. The hon. Lady must make another.

Miss Devlin: I did not wish to ask for a Ruling on that matter, but simply to point out that this was one factor.
It is necessary, approaching Easter, to remember that the House has an opportunity of intervening to prevent further violence in Derry. There can be no question that there is no Ministerial responsibility. The British Army has been involved in these disturbances. Therefore, I submit that this is a specific matter. It is of the greatest urgency, because

we can for once prevent violence in Derry as the House is sitting during the initial stages of the violence. It is also a matter of great public importance. The work that has been done by this Parliament over the past year for Northern Ireland can rapidly be undone. Therefore, I submit that this Motion falls within the terms of Standing Order No. 9, and I ask that the House adjourn to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was courteous enough this morning to inform me that she might seek this afternoon to make another application under Standing Order No. 9 on a different matter.
The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the three consecutive nights of violence in Derry, Northern Ireland, on 21st, 22nd and 23rd March, all involving units of the British Army, the cause of this fresh outbreak of violence, and the necessity of this House taking immediate action to defuse the situation.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady and given careful consideration to the representations that she has made, but I have to rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 and that, therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

Mr. Howie: On a point or order. An opportunity to raise a debate under Standing Order No. 9 is a very important privilege, taken advantage of from time to time by hon. Members. Is it not intolerable that, while an hon. Member is making a submission under that Standing Order, she should be interrupted by bogus and spurious points of order of a highly partisan nature raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)?

Captain Orr: Further to that point of order. Is it not intolerable that the device of applying for an Adjournment debate under Standing Order No. 9 should be misused by those who, for


spurious reasons, seek to stir up violence in advance?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unusual to raise a point of order during a submission under Standing Order No. 9, which is, indeed, a point of order itself. It is raised on a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain On) felt that he was justified in raising it in the very unusual circumstances in which we had two applications under Standing Order No. 9 from the same hon. Member in two days. On the particular issue by referring to Standing Order No. 9 itself, Mr. Speaker is forbidden to comment.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that Standing Order No. 9 was being used by an hon. Member to stir up violence. He was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you think he is entitled to say that an hon. Member, in attempting to get a debate under Standing Order No. 9, is guilty of trying to stir up violence.

Mr. Speaker: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman has said. Every hon. Member has the right to raise, under Standing Order No. 9, something which he or she believes to be important, and important enough to take precedence over some other business of the day. It is not a gracious thing to impute motives to one another.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Further to that point of order. A similar point was raised yesterday by the hon. Lady. Is it possible to continue, day after day, raising a similar application under Standing Order No. 9? It must surely be apparent that the continued use of these tactics could help to create a situation of tension, which could lead to violence.

Mr. Speaker: I am not ruling on hypothetical circumstances.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. It will surely not have passed your notice, Mr. Speaker, that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)

yesterday raised this matter under Standing Order No. 9, the Opposition acted perfectly correctly—because no Ulster Unionist Members were present. Today, unfortunately, we have seen an endeavour to prevent free speech in this House and have also heard a statement by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that my hon. Friend was actually advocating violence in Northern Ireland. I believe that that remark should be withdrawn.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Heat does us no good. Hon. Members on both sides seek, in their own ways, to bring about what I believe is the feeling of every hon. Member—an easement of tension in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. Is not my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) completely justified in what he said as to the abuse of this procedure by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), whose political aims are fully on record in her own autobiographical book?

Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of order. It is a point of politics. The hon. Gentleman must argue it out with the hon. Lady.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) quoted only part of what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). He quoted him as saying that my hon. Friend was trying to stir up violence, but he also used the words, "for spurious reasons". Is not that an imputation of dishonesty by one hon. Member against another, and should it not be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member casts his memory back, he will realise that the charge of spuriousness has been levelled by one side against the other and vice versa.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. You have always told us, Mr. Speaker, that we can level charges against the other side generally, but that we must not impute dishonourable motives to individual hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: That is a statement of fact.

Mr. Howie: Further to that point of order. I think that I am right in recollecting that I was the first to use the word "spurious". I was referring to a spurious point of order, which, indeed, it was. That is an entirely different thing from the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).

Mr. Speaker: We should not pursue this any further.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order. I am sorry to delay the progress in the House and I am not concerned about whether either side was right in their points of order. What I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is this: is it in order to accuse another hon. Member of attempting to stir up violence? If it is not, would it not be correct to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: It is certainly not in order to use a point of order to make a political charge against another hon. Member.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: On a point of order. Purely for the record, and as a matter of accuracy, would it be in order for me to point out that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is not correct to allege that no hon. Members from Northern Ireland were present yesterday? I was not, because I was looking into what happened in Derry, but there were such hon. Members present.

Mr. Speaker: We must move on.

Mr. Newens: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

Mr. Newens: On a point of order. Some time ago, some of us were in the Chamber when you asked my hon. Friend the Member far Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) to withdraw a statement which he had made, I think on the ground that it reflected on other hon. Members. Is it in order that such a Ruling should be applied against one hon. Member on this side, but that, when another Member on the other side of the House makes a far more serious charge against my hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), he should be allowed to say that without being asked to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: The two sides of the House mean nothing to Mr. Speaker. I have already ruled that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South was wrong to use a point of order to make a political charge—

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should get on with our business much more quickly if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No!

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose

Captain Orr: On a point of order. Let me make my position perfectly plain——

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Captain Orr: I happen to believe that the activities of the hon. Lady in the last few days are designed and calculated to justify a further outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland. I have no intention of withdrawing that statement.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. MacDermot: Further to that point of order. Has not the hon. and gallant Member made matters worse? He now is making it perfectly clear that he is deliberately accusing the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) of using the procedures of this House in order to incite violence in Northern Ireland. One can hardly think of a more serious personal accusation that could be made, particularly bearing in mind the extremely tense situation in Northern Ireland. I respectfully submit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be asked again to withdraw, and that the usual consequences should follow if he refuses.

Mr. Speaker: I have already asked the hon. and gallant Member to contribute to what I know he wants and what the whole House wants—the easement of tension in Northern Ireland—by withdrawing the charges which he made against the hon. Lady.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. There is in Northern Ireland a small


minority whose declared intention is to overthrow the Constitution by any device or trick they can dream up. I would argue——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be true, but that has nothing to do with any hon. Member.

Mr. McMaster: Mr. McMaster rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better be careful.

Mr. McMaster: My point of order is that the procedures of this House should not be used to further that end.

Mr. Speaker: The procedures of this House guarantee in this House the right of all right hon. and hon. Members to free speech and the use of the parliamentary procedures, including Standing Order No. 9, to raise what they believe to be in the interests of their country and of democracy.

Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put this to you for guidance. If those activities are seditious, as possibly they are, is that not against the rules of order?

Mr. Speaker: There are no seditious activities in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman should learn to choose his words carefully. There are strong differences of opinion about Northern Ireland. All Members of this Parliament representing Northern Ireland have equal rights of expressing them in this House of Commons and of using whatever parliamentary procedures are available. Nothing out of order has happened in the two submissions.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has made a foul accusation against my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). He has now shown his complete contempt for the Chair. If the integrity of the House of Commons is to be maintained, he must either withdraw or get out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Chair and not for the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that on two occasions you have invited the hon. and gallant Member

for Down, South (Captain Orr) to withdraw remarks to which you and the whole House have taken serious objection. Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is considered consistent with the dignity of the House that we should continue with our business until the hon. and gallant Member has complied with your request that he should withdraw remarks which have created great offence?

Mr. Speaker: I have already conveyed that twice to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South.

Mr. Lubbock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not exactly clear what is the position with regard to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) except that he has made a remark which is completely out of order which you requested him to withdraw.
As I understand, on previous occasions when an hon. Member has made an accusation against another hon. Member you have always instructed him to withdraw it. But on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, you have merely requested the hon. and gallant Member to do so in the interests of peace and good order in Northern Ireland. Quite obviously, we shall not get on to the next business until this matter has been settled.
May I ask you, with great respect and deference, to instruct the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his remark, so that we can get on with the business?

Mr. Ogden: May I suggest that the cause of peace in Ulster will not be served by making martyrs on either side of the House. Our best contribution, supported by the majority of the House, would be to get on with the next business.

Mr. Wiliam Hamilton: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any precedent for the Chair to invite an hon. Member to withdraw a remark which has been grossly offensive and which has been repeated since you asked him to withdraw? Is there any precedent at all for allowing that hon. Member to sit in his seat refusing to withdraw without him being named.

Mr. Speaker: There are precedents.

Mr. Howie: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South was out of order


right from the beginning in this matter in raising it at all, despite my interruption to that effect. Since then, he has been requested to withdraw an extremely offensive remark directed towards an hon. Member on this side of the House—and quite wrongly directed. Not only that, but in refusing to withdraw at your request, Mr. Speaker, the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, repeated his offensive remark. I suggest that it would be better if the hon. and gallant Member were instructed to withdraw.

Mr. Woodburn: I appeal, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who is bringing this House into disrepute by insisting on a course of action which he knows it is impossible for the Chair to condone. The hon. and gallant Member is placing the Chair in such a position that he is bringing the House into disrepute. On that ground, I hope that he will withdraw and allow the House to carry on with its business.

Mr. Speaker: I have already asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman in those terms, and for exactly the same reason, on two occasions already.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. It is within the recollection of the House, and you, Mr. Speaker, have just intimated on two occasions that you have suggested to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South that he might withdraw. But HANSARD will reveal tomorrow that he said, subsequent to your asking him to withdraw, "I have no intention of withdrawing". I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that amounts literally to defiance of the Chair.

Mr. Maginnis: The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, South, (Captain Orr) were absolutely correct. Therefore, he has no reason to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we now appreciate the difficulties of the Irish question.

Mr. Lubbock: I should like to get this clear. In what circumstances, Mr. Speaker, when you make a simple request to an hon. Member to withdraw, and that hon. Member then ignores it and flouts the authority of the Chair, is he

allowed to get away with it? Under what other circumstances will you instruct him to withdraw and under what circumstances will you name him?

Mr. Will Griffiths: Is not the position this, Mr. Speaker? Whatever Members of the House may feel about the merits of what the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) had to say, you, as the occupant of the Chair, have said that in your view the remarks ought to be withdrawn. If that is so, does it not bring the Chair into disrepute; and if the hon. and gallant Member refuses to comply, should you then not take further action against him?

Mr. Shinwell: It is obvious that there is intense feeling on both sides of the House about this matter. We recognise that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) feels very strongly about this, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). You have been placed, Mr. Speaker, in an embarrassing position.
If the hon. and gallant Member does not wish to withdraw his observations the proper course for him is to withdraw from the Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I happen to know the procedure and the tradition of the House. If the hon. and gallant Member refuses to withdraw from the Chamber, there is only one course to be taken. That is for a member of the Cabinet—and it requires a member of the Cabinet—to name the hon. and gallant Member. That is a very serious step to take. Surely it would be to the advantage of the House—and, indeed, to the advantage of the hon. and gallant Member—if, having defied the Chair, in the circumstances he might absent himself from the House and let us proceed with the business.

Mr. Sandys: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the fact that you did not ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to withdraw, but that you said that it would save a lot of time if he did withdraw his remark, which is quite different?

Mr. Speaker: I said much more than that. I said that it would contribute to the good feeling of the House and to what we all have in mind for Northern Ireland, an easement of tension, if the


hon. and gallant Member for Down. South did withdraw his remark.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the contagion spread even further? The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) has said that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South was quite right in what he originally said, while the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), whose respect for law and order we all know so well, has also compounded the offence. Should not all three be asked to withdraw?

Sir Eric Fletcher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I return to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Surely I am right in saying that, hitherto, the House has never drawn a distinction between a request by the Chair to an hon. Member to withdraw and an instruction to withdraw. Surely the truth is that, hitherto, a request to an hon. Member to withdraw has been treated by hon. Members as, in fact, an instruction to withdraw.
We shall get ourselves into a very curious position if, in future, we establish a precedent whereby a distinction is drawn between a request by the Chair to an hon. Member to withdraw and an instruction to withdraw.
I listened to your two Rulings very carefully and I thought, in common, I am sure, with a great many others, that they were intended to be an instruction to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to withdraw, couched, in the familiar language used by the Chair, in the form of a request so as not to convey any undue offence. Surely it would be in accordance with the traditions of the House if a request so made by Mr. Speaker in those terms were accepted and responded to by the hon. and gallant Member. Equally surely, if it were not so accepted by the hon. and gallant Member we should be creating a precedent which would bring not only the House but the Chair itself into very considerable disrepute.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I would say, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that you will make up your mind on this either way

in the best sense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that the argument is whether or not the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) imputed personal motives to another hon. Member. I would have thought that the right course for him, in view of what Mr. Speaker has said, would be to withdraw and, indeed, to say that he regretted the remark.
On the other hand, I accept that passions are aroused in the House for various reasons. We all understand that. [Interruption.] I would have thought that the wisest course would be for the hon. and gallant Member to say that he regretted imputing personal motives to a colleague, if Mr. Speaker is accusing him of doing so. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would make up your mind, because we are in difficulties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that the hon. and gallant Member withdraws the remark. [Interruption.] I hope—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing disorderly in what the Leader of the House is saying.

Mr. Peart: I hope that you will give a clear direction to the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gower: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Is it not most improper for any hon. Member, even if he be Leader of the House, to tell you to do your duty?

Mr. Speaker: If it is most improper, it has been happening for the last half hour.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have already suggested that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South should leave the Chamber, but if he refuses to do so it is within your discretion to ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. If he refuses to withdraw from the Chamber, then someone on behalf of Her Majesty's Government must name him.

Captain Orr: I have a very high regard for this House and for you, Mr. Speaker. I do not repent of my opinion, but I will now withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Eldon Griffiths. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Order. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

MURDER (LIFE IMPRISONMENT)

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of a policeman on duty, or of any person going to his aid, shall not be reduced to less than thirty years, except by an order of the Secretary of State; and for purposes related thereto.
I am grateful for 10 minutes free speech in order to ask leave to present my Bill, and I want to say at the outset how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for her courtesy and unselfishness in giving up her Ten-Minute Rule time to enable me to move this Motion.
The fact that my hon. Friend and no fewer than five others of my hon. Friends and a number of hon. Members opposite volunteered to give up their time to me is a measure, I believe, of the very deep feeling in the country—a feeling reinforced by the large number of letters I have received in support. It is eloquent of the feeling that it is necessary and urgent to provide the police service with a greater measure of protection than it has at present.
As the House knows, I have a connection with the Police Federation. The Bill, however, is not a police initiative, but, in the light of present circumstances—those of the House having decided to abolish capital punishment and, as I judge it, being unwilling to reverse the decision—the police have offered to me their unanimous support for the Bill. I am glad to say that I also have the support of the Secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform. The reason for the Bill is straightforward. A new situation has arisen as a result of the abolition of capital punishment. That new situation has three aspects.
Before abolition, the average policeman believed, and acted on the belief, that, in tackling an armed criminal, he personally was armour plated by the law of capital punishment. The policeman pinned his faith, and risked his life on that faith, on the fact that any criminal who murdered a police officer on duty was virtually signing his own death warrant. It matters little whether that belief was or was not statistically or

morally justified. What matters is that, in that belief, the unarmed police have performed frequent acts of gallantry in the face of criminal gunmen and have done so as a matter of routine.
Today, however, there is a new situation. The House has taken away what the police quite fiercely regarded as the only sure-fire protection against the criminal gunmen. As a result, many policemen have become much more hesitant—and which of us, in the circumstances, will blame them?—about risking their lives to arrest armed professional criminals whose own lives no longer are at risk. I quote from just one of the many letters from police officers. This is from a constable with 12 years' service, in Ipswich:
It now appears that to rob a train with nobody killed can be a more serious offence, 30 years' imprisonment, than to shoot a policeman. I am a married man with three children. If confronted by an armed man I would not any longer jeopardise my life to arrest him.
That is a letter from a police officer.
This, then, is the first aspect of this new situation. The police believe, all but unanimously, that they have lost the bullet-proof vest of capital punishment. That is why they are asking that if this House will not restore capital punishment for murder then at least we should make haste to put something else, something effective, in its place.
I turn now to the new situation as it affects the professional criminal. I am thinking here of the calculating criminal, the man who, in cold blood, cleans and loads a pistol or sawn-off shotgun, puts it in his coat and sets out with the clear intention of using it if he is caught. Such a man is well aware that it is the statutory duty, laid upon him by this House, of any police officer to prevent his escape. So that man, when confronted by a police officer, must choose between two alternatives. Either he surrenders or he uses that gun in an attempt to escape. Suppose that he surrenders; then, depending on his record, he is likely to be sentenced to anything from seven to 14 years. With remission for good behaviour, the probability is that he will serve between six and eight of those years.
Suppose, however, that he shoots the policeman who very often is the only witness. In that case, there is a chance


of his getting away scot-free; and even if he is caught his sentence on conviction for murder at worst will be life imprisonment; so the question becomes: what does "life" really mean? I agree with the Home Secretary that in the case of the seasoned gunman that sentence would very seldom in practice be reduced to the minimum period of nine years. It was recommended that the Shepherd's Bush killers, for example, should stay in prison for not less than 30 years, but this is exceptional. The man who killed Police-Constable Miles was let out after serving 12 years. The murderer of Police-Constable Edgar was released after 10 years; and I notice that Howard Winson, who was recommended to serve 25 years for the murder of two Glasgow police officers, is reported to have said on leaving the court, "Don't worry. I will be out in 16 years".
Here, at least, is one dangerous gunman who quite clearly does not believe that life imprisonment means what it says. So my second point is that the sentences actually served by recent murderers of policemen are by no means consistently as long as the Home Secretary would have us believe.
The heart of the matter, at least as it concerns the police, is that there is simply not enough difference between the sentence actually served by an armed robber who gives himself up and an armed criminal who commits murder in the hope of getting away. That difference can be as little as three or four years, or five or six years at the worst. In my opinion, that is not enough to set against the risk of a police officer's life. The odds are too one-sided, because at the point when the police officer must decide to tackle that criminal gunman the policeman risks all that he has. He risks his life, his family and his future. But the gunman he confronts no longer risks his life. This House has saved him from that. All that the gunman risks is a few more years tacked on to the end of his gaol sentence. If, by shooting, he can get away he also stands a chance of serving no sentence at all. The two risks are too one-sided.
I turn now to the third aspect of the situation, which is the consistent and alarming increase of lethal assaults on the police. There are no exact statistics,

but I offer these as an illustration of the number of policemen whose cases have gone before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In 1965–66, there were just over 200. In 1967, this total had more than doubled to 500; and last year there were nearly 700 cases. So that there has been an increase of more than three times in the number of policemen criminally injured on duty over the last five years. Some of these cases would have been cases of murder, but for the criminals' very poor aim.
Against this background the time has come for Parliament to fill the vacuum left by abolition, and that is precisely what my Bill would seek to do. Essentially, it provides that life imprisonment for the wilful murder of a policeman on duty and those who go to his aid henceforth would mean much more nearly what it says. A life sentence for this type of murder henceforth would not be reduced to less than 30 years and for most practical purposes this would mean that wilful killers of policemen would stay in confinement until, generally speaking, they were incapable of murdering again.
The Home Secretary still would be able to release on humanitarian grounds. Specifically, he could do so if the mental or physical deterioration of a life prisoner had gone to such a point that no useful public purpose would be served by continuing his confinement. I must admit that I should have liked to widen the Bill to include all kinds of criminals who murder with malice aforethought.
I accept that by confining it to the police I may be accused of creating what some may call a special category of murder. But my answer is that the police are a special category. They are unique because they and they alone are required, under discipline, to risk their lives against the criminal; and there is no more eloquent and tragic proof of this than the fact that 13 policemen have been murdered on duty over the past five years, two of them during the last few months. It is, therefore, no wonder that the police and their wives are now asking; how many more police lives are to be placed at risk before this House provides them with more adequate protection?
Perhaps I should head off this last objection, namely, that my Bill would


create a minimum sentence. I assure the House that it would not. If the English language means anything, we already have a fixed sentence. We call it life imprisonment. All that my Bill seeks to do is to set limits on the amount of remission; that is, on the number of years that can be lopped off a sentence of life imprisonment by an act of remission by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
Finally, the Home Secretary, to his credit, has set up under Judge Edmund Davies a committee to review the whole question of sentencing. Of course, I welcome this, but this committee is not enough. The need is for speedy action to provide our unarmed police with the protection they need and deserve and which, alas, they now feel they have lost. The right time to have provided that protection was immediately following abolition. I very much regret that 63 months, and 13 policemen's lives, after the Second Reading of the Silverman Bill nothing practical has been done to till the vacuum left by the ending of the death sentence.
I do not believe we can wait either for Lord Justice Davies or for the Home Secretary who, in any event, if he wishes can incorporate the findings of the Davies Committee into the Bill during its Committee stage. Therefore, I appeal to the House to give leave to bring in this Bill. We have, as an act of compassion, saved the lives of criminal gunmen by abolishing capital punishment. Should we not now do as much for the unarmed police who are asked to go up against those gunmen and risk their lives for their duty?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I rise to oppose the Motion. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) made the best case he could in support of a proposition which the House would be ill-advised to support. The hon. Gentleman appealed frankly to our emotions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but I do not consider that the arguments he put forward will stand examination.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that I fully share the horror that all of us feel on those, happily rare, occasions when a policeman is murdered on duty.
I entirely understand the anxiety of the police and, in particular, of their wives and families that everything possible should be done to safeguard the police.
Needless to say, I yield to no one in my admiration for the police and their courage in the face of danger. However, I do not believe that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is necessary to achieve the objective he has in mind or that it would contribute to the protection of the police.
In the time I have at my disposal I can refer to only a few of what I consider to be compelling arguments against the Motion. First, a general point, namely, that the House would do well not to fetter the discretion of the courts by attempting to insert precise penalties into legislation. In criminal legislation our job, as I see it, is to define the offence and perhaps to prescribe a maximum penalty, but to leave to the court's judgment the nature of the penalty in a particular case.
Within every category of crime, even the murder of policemen, there are always degrees of culpability and deliberation which make any rigid imposition of a fixed penalty or a minimum term of imprisonment quite unsuitable. True justice requires these sort of considerations, and others, to be taken into account in determining the length of time an offender serves in prison.
It can be argued in a loose sense, as the hon. Gentleman said, that murder already carries a fixed penalty; that of life imprisonment. In practice, however, the actual term served by someone convicted of murder varies between wide limits, at the discretion of the Home Secretary, but in the light of any recommendations that may have been made by the trial judge and certainly in the light of a great deal of advice that he receives.
I cannot think that any Home Secretary—or any court, for that matter—is likely to deal with undue leniency with any case involving the murder of a policeman, which is a crime for which we all have a special abhorrence. This fact alone, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, is well enough known among the criminal elements to be a fairly effective deterrent.
I hope that hon. Members have read, the text of a letter which my right hon.
Friend the Home Secretary wrote to the Police Federation and which was published last Friday in HANSARD, at columns 235–8. It dealt with the procedures and safeguards under which life sentences are treated and reviewed by the Home Secretary.
I do not believe that anyone reading that letter would ever again think that prisoners serving life sentences, especially those who had murdered policemen, would be likely, lightly or prematurely, to be released on licence. The elaborate procedures, and the very strong safeguards on which my right hon. Friend insists, in my view form the greatest possible protection of both the public and the police for which anyone could reasonably ask.
For what does the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds ask? Under his proposal any release after less than 30 years served by a prisoner serving a life sentence would be effective only if an Order were laid before Parliament by the Home Secretary. That Order would automatically be debateable. Offhand, I cannot think of a more unsuitable topic for debate in this House than whether a convicted murderer should or should not be released on licence at a particular moment.
I come to what some hon. Members may consider to be the weightiest argument against the introduction of a Bill of this nature at the time. It was briefly mentioned, only, I am afraid, to be dismissed by the hon. Gentleman towards the end of his speech. As was foreshadowed in a speech which he made to the House before Christmas, my right hon. Friend has recently announced that he has asked that very distinguished

standing body, the Criminal Law Revision Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Edmund Davies, to review, in the light of Parliament's decision finally to abolish the death penalty, the whole law relating to, and the penalties for, offences against the person, including homicide.

For this House to try to anticipate or pre-empt, even in part, the conclusions of such a committee would, I suggest, be ill-advised in the extreme. Such a step would savour of panic measures in a situation which in no way justifies action of that kind. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds quoted some figures of assaults, but my right hon. Friend published figures recently which demonstrated that there had been no significant increase in England and Wales, since Parliament abolished the death penalty, in incidents involving the murder of policemen.

By all means let the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds give evidence to the Criminal Law Revision Committee which, I know, will give full consideration to the case he puts forward. It will then be open to the committee to recommend any steps that it thinks should be taken.

Meanwhile, I beg him to withdraw his Motion for leave to bring in his Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is unwilling to do so, then I ask the House, regardless of party—this is no party matter—decisively to reject the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 180.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[4.38 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blackburn, F.
Clark, Henry


Anderson, Donald
Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Walter


Astor, John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Braine, Bernard
Crouch, David


Baxter, William
Brewis, John
Crowder, F. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bence, Cyril
Brooks, Edwin
Dance, James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Davidson, fames (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dean, Paul


Bessell, Peter
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dempsey, James


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Doig, Peter


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Chataway, Christopher
Eden, Sir John


Black, Sir Cyril
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)




Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Peel, John


Errington, Sir Eric
King, Tom
Percival, Ian


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Francis


Farr, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Antony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridsdale, Julian


Foster, Sir John
Lane, David
Royle, Anthony


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fry, Peter
Lawler, Wallace
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gibson-Watt, David
Lee, John (Reading)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Lomas, Kenneth
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Golding, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony


Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Grant, Anthony
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
Temple, John M.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John


Hawkins, Paul
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Higgins, Terence L.
Molloy, William
Waddington, David


Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hill, J. E. B.
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
More, Jasper
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar
Wiggin, Jerry


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neal, Harold
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oakes, Gordon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wright, Esmond


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wylie, N. R.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Younger, Hn. George


Jopling, Michael
Oswald, Thomas



Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Dame Irene Ward and


Kelley, Richard
Pardoe, John
Mr. Eldon Griffiths.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Hilton, W. S.


Ailaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dewar, Donald
Hobden, Dennis


Allen, Scholefield
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hooley, Frank


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Dickens, James
Horner, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Dobson, Ray
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex
Howie, W.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnes, Michael
Ellis, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Joel
English, Michael
Hunter, Adam


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hynd, John


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Booth, Albert
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, At. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Boston, Terence
Fe[...]yhough, E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bradley, Tom
Finch, Harold
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Latham, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Freeson, Reginald
Lawson, George


Carmichael, Neil
Gardner, Tony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, W. E.
Lester, Miss Joan


Castle, Rt. Kn. Barbara
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lipton, Marcus


Chapman, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Loughlin, Charles


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lubbock, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Grimond Rt. Hn. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McBride, Neil


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McCann, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamling, William
MacColl, James


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hannan, William
MacDermot, Niall


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McElhone, Frank


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Haseldine, Norman
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hazell, Bert
Mackie, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackintosh, John P.







Maclennan, Robert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Small, William


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. John


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taverne, Dick


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Mapp, Charles
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tinn, James


Marquand, David
Rankin, John
Urwin, T. W.


Mayhew, Christopher
Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Mendelson, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wallace, George


Milian, Bruce
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roebuck, Roy
Weitzman, David


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rose, Paul
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rowlands, E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Winnick, David


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sheldon, Robert
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Murray, Albert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woof, Robert


Newens, Stan
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)



Oram, Bert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orbach, Maurice
Sillars, J.
Mr. Eric Ogden and


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Hugh Brown.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

FARM CAPITAL GRANTS

5
(1) The appropriate authority may with the approval of the Treasury by scheme provide for the making, subject to such exceptions or restrictions as may be provided for by the scheme, of grants of amounts determined in such manner as may be provided for by or under the scheme towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying on or establishment of an agricultural business, being expenditure which—


10
(a) has been or is to be incurred in respect of any such matters as may be specified in the scheme, or in respect of works or facilities certified under section 26(6) of the Agriculture Act 1967 as amended by subsection (2)(e) of section (Amendments as to grants in connection with alterations of farm structure) of this Act; and



(b) appears to the appropriate Minister to be of a capital nature or incurred in connection with expenditure of a capital nature; and


15
(c) is approved by the appropriate Minister for the purposes of a grant under the 15 scheme.



(2) Any scheme under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and—



(a) may be made for any one, or jointly for any two or for all three, of the following, namely—



(i) England and Wales;


20
(ii) Scotland;



(iii) Northern Ireland;



(b) may make different provision for different circumstances;


25
(c) may vary or revoke any previous scheme under this section if or so far as that previous scheme is made for the same part or parts of the United Kingdom as the revoking or varying scheme;


30
(d) shall be laid before Parliament after being made and cease to have effect (without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new scheme) after the expiration of a period of forty days (calculated in accordance with section 7(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946) beginning with the day on which it is made unless within that period it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament;


35
and the duration of such a scheme (that is to say, the period within which expenditure must qualify in accordance with the provisions of the scheme for consideration for a grant thereunder) shall be a period not exceeding seven years, but that period may from time to time be extended by further schemes under this section for periods not exceeding seven years at a time.


40
(3) Any grant under such a scheme may be made, and any approval under such a scheme may be given, subject to such conditions as the appropriate Minister thinks fit; and any payment by way of such a grant shall be made at such time, or by such instalments at such intervals or times, as the appropriate Minister may determine—



(a) where the expenditure in question is incurred for the purposes of activities on land situated in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, by the Minister;



(b) where that expenditure is incurred for the purposes of activities on land situated in Scotland, by the Secretary of State.


45
(4) If at any time after the appropriate Minister has approved any expenditure for the purposes of a grant under such a scheme it appears to that Minister—



(a) that any condition subject to which the approval was given or the grant has been made has not been complied with; or


50
(b) that any work in respect of expenditure on which the approval was given has been 50 badly done, or has been or is being unreasonably delayed, or is unlikely to be completed; or


55
(c) that the person by whom the application for that approval was made (hereafter in this subsection referred to as 'the applicant') gave information on any matter relevant to the giving of the approval which was false or misleading in a material respect,

60
the appropriate Minister may revoke the approval in respect of the whole or part of the expenditure and, where in pursuance of subsection (3)(a) or (b) of this section any payment has been made by the Minister or the Secretary of State by way of grant, the Minister or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State may on demand recover an amount equal to that payment or such part thereof as the appropriate Minister may specify; but before revoking an approval in whole or in part under this subsection the appropriate Minister—



(i) shall give to the applicant a written notification of the reasons for the revocation; and


65
(ii) shall accord to the applicant an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the appropriate Minister; and



(iii) shall consider the report by any person so appointed and supply a copy of that report to the applicant.


70
(5) If any person, for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person any grant under such a scheme, knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.


75
(6) As from such date as the appropriate authority may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and subject to subsection (7) of this section, the enactments mentioned in Part A of Schedule 4 to this Act and any instrument made thereunder shall to the extent specified in the third column of the said Part A, or, as the case may be, to the extent that the instrument was made by virtue of any provision of those enactments so specified, cease to have effect.


80
(7) Notwithstanding subsection (6) of this section, the appropriate authority may with the approval of the Treasury by order provide for any such enactment or instrument as is referred to in that subsection to continue in force for such period after the date appointed under that subsection as may be specified in the order (and, in the case of the provisions of section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967 so referred to, as if the further amendments to that section made by section (Amendments as to grants in connection with alterations of farm structure) of this Act had not been made) for the purposes of cases of any description so specified; and any order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument


85
and—



(a) may make different provision for different circumstances;



(b) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under this subsection; and



(c) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.45 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I beg to move, That the Clause be road a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Before the right hon. Gentleman starts his speech, may I say that we shall be discussing with this new clause Amendment (a), in line 16, after 'instrument', insert:
'after consultation with such bodies of persons as appear to the appropriate Minister to represent the interests of persons engaged in agriculture';
Amendment No. 19, in page 24, line 11, after 'words' insert:
'after consultation with such bodies of persons as appear to the appropriate Minister to represent the interests of persons engaged in horticulture';
and Amendment No. 56.

Mr. Hughes: This Clause was Clause 29 in the original Bill. It was discussed at considerable length in Committee. It was repeated on a snap Division and its loss necessitated—[Interrup-

tion.] We must have honest speaking. It was defeated on a snap Division and its loss necessitated the dropping of Clause 32, Schedule 2, and Part I of Schedule 5 from the previous draft. We made clear, both at the time and subsequently, that we proposed to table Amendments designed to restore these provisions to the Bill and the House will see that they are all included on the Order Paper. I think this was well understood by hon. Members on the Standing Committee.
Having looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's sittings, I was glad to see the remarks of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), in which, quite properly, he recognised during the course of our discussions there, provision would have to be made for capital grants in the Bill. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us on that. Without it, grants for farm improvements would fairly soon have to be wound up since the fixed sum of money made available for the Farm Improvement Scheme will be exhausted in a year or so. Moreover, we would lose all the benefits of


the proposed streamlining and simplification of the capital grant schemes.
I know that this is something to which the industry—and, I hope, the Opposition, as well as hon. Members on the Government benches—attach considerable importance. We certainly think that it is essential, at this stage in the industry's development, to reduce the amount of close supervision exercised over the industry as part of the grant system and to cut the costs of administration if possible.
The Opposition have developed three main themes of objection to the Clause. First, they do not accept the desirability of redirecting funds from the grants on tractors to other—and we think more productive—uses. Second, they are concerned about the provision of grants for investment which is not directly linked with the land. Third, they disapprove of the enabling character of the legislation.
Those were their three main stands of criticism in Committee. I want to deal with them, starting with the tractor grants. We feel very strongly that the industry and the country stand to benefit from the proposed changes, which will make possible a more effective use of the grant funds. That is the basic point. The investment grant is fixed at 10 per cent. of expenditure, and payment is spread over two years. Under our proposals, this grant would be terminated and the funds used for other grants. There would, therefore, be no reduction in the grant payments as a consequence of the change, and there never has been any intention of reducing the amount of grant paid to the industry. I made this point on Second Reading and a number of times in Committee, and I stress it again now.
Indeed, the industry will benefit, since the present tax arrangements would enable the vast majority of farmers to claim the initial tax allowance in respect of purchases of tractors and harvesters. This would represent a net gain to the industry equivalent to about half the value of the present 10 per cent. grant to those paying income tax at the standard rate. Anyone paying tax at a higher rate would benefit still more.
But there is another aspect of this question. The taxpayer can reasonably ask that the funds he provides should be used to good effect. There is no evi-

dence that the grants on tractors have had any significant effect on tractor purchases. Almost invariably they would have been purchased in any case. And we do not expect the substitution of the initial tax allowance for grant to make any significant difference to the number of tractors purchased. But the ending of the tractor grants will allow us to grant-aid a wider range of plant and machinery, such as movable loaders, blowers, augers and plant for mechanised feeding, which can make a major contribution to improved productivity. We hope to include items that will benefit small producers as well as large.
It is clear, too, that small producers who can grow little of the food required for extra livestock will stand to benefit from being able under the new scheme to obtain grant for the first time in respect of investment to expand their livestock production—a very important advance. We are likely to get up to 80,000 applications a year under the new scheme, so that a very wide range of farmers will benefit from it.
All of these arguments must be viewed in the context of the arrangements I announced last week to make very substantial increases in grant rates on the whole range of items to be covered by the Farm Capital Grant Scheme until 19th March, 1972. It is as well that we should be having this debate now, in the aftermath of the announcement I made on capital grants last week. The original proposals would have left the industry better off. These increases in grant rates will give a major incentive to new capital investment and will themselves constitute a substantial injection of additional capital into the industry, benefiting all progressive producers—large and small.
As for the possible effect of assisting investment not directly linked with the land, we consider the fears expressed in some quarters on this score to be unfounded. As I said last week, we are for more general reasons introducing a ceiling on the amount of investment by any individual farming unit which can qualify for grant. This should ensure that a few very large producers do not get a disproportionately large share of grant funds.
As for the question of the enabling powers in the Clause, which is another point raised by the Opposition in Com-


mittee, I draw the attention of the House to the grant increases which I announced last week. Some of these are being made by Orders, subject to the approval of Parliament, and others by administrative arrangement under existing powers. It would be quite wrong to tie down the details of our grant schemes by specifying them in an Act of Parliament so that an amending Act would be needed to change them.
It is essential that we should be able to take prompt action to adapt our grant arrangements to the needs of fresh developments and new situations, and that is why we have included these powers in the Clause. Any change in the grant rates specified by the scheme would, of course, be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, there will be opportunity for further debate on the details of the scheme in due course. There is no question of avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope that the Opposition will reconsider their earlier position with respect to the Clause. They, too, I think, subscribe to its objectives. I hope that we can agree now on the need to get the Clause into the Bill and on to the Statute Book so that farmers can take full advantage——

Mr. John Peyton: May I ask the Minister to dilate a little more, for the benefit of those of us who were not on the Standing Committee, on what he has just said. He knows perfectly well that bringing a Resolution before the House keeps discussion very short, whereas the embarrassment to a Department of having to introduce a Bill means that the House has a chance to deliberate on the issue. When a large sum of taxpayers' money is involved it is no bad thing that Ministers should have to bear that slight inconvenience. I find the Clause which was so admirably defeated by my hon. Friends in Committee most unpleasant, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say a great deal more to justify it.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically unfair. As he knows, we had a very long discussion in Committee. No doubt he has read the Committee HANSARD and will have seen that we went into it in considerable

detail. I have introduced it again and explained the position in some detail. We do not wish to avoid the possibility of a very full debate on the issue now, to which with the leave of the House and the Chair I shall seek to reply. We are not finishing the discussion now, even after the most exhaustive debate. I was making the very fair point that the scheme will return and be debatable again, so that on this issue we are having rather more debate than usual.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: The Minister has moved the Second Reading of the Clause with his customary conciliatory attitude, and we listened with interest to what he said. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I feel deeply unhappy about its reintroduction. I criticised it on Second Reading. We then had long discussions in Committee, and the Committee took a decision on the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman says that there was a snap Division. The Committee took a decision in the way it always does, on a vote. If the Government and their supporters had wished to support the Clause, they could well have been there. I took it that we had convinced some of the Minister's hon. Friends and that, to avoid embarrassment, they stayed away and thus the Clause was defeated.

An Hon. Member: Just as they are staying away now.

Mr. Godber: Indeed. They are obviously not supporting the Minister now. There is only one distinguished back-bencher opposite, whom we are glad to see. This is typical.
I thought that we put forward some compelling arguments about this Clause and I am disappointed to find it back again, in identical form. It seems that the Government are seeking to use their parliamentary majority to crush the obvious good sense of the Committee. We on this side are anxious to see capital grants playing an important part in the economy of agriculture. When in power we were responsible for introducing a number of these very important Measures.
This Clause proposes to take out some existing measures, which are well-known and well liked by the farming community and to replace them with something about which so far neither the Minister nor his


Parliamentary Secretaries, have told us anything. I thought at one point that the Minister would say a little bit about this. It is common knowledge that he and his Department have been holding consultations with interested bodies. I am amazed that we should be asked to approve such a Clause, so wide in its scope, giving no indication of its intentions, which replaces statutes much more specific about the help they provide for agriculture.
I reminded the Minister in Committee that in the 1957 Agriculture Act, and in other enactments, we spelt out the broad provisions for the farm improvement scheme and other types of capital grant. The Minister is merely providing here
… for the making, subject to such exceptions or restrictions as may be provided for by the scheme, of grants of amounts determined in such a manner as may be provided for by or under the scheme, towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying on or establishment of an agricultural business …
Then there are some broad limitations, but nothing like the type of limitations written into previous enactments.
This is purely an enabling Clause, as the Minister has said. It does not add to the protection of agriculture; it takes away from it because it allows any Government at any time, if they choose, to make the most drastic changes in the capital grants without consideration of any legislation on the Statute Book. It merely requires an amending scheme to be brought in under the Act to make any necessary changes. As we all know, when a scheme is brought before the House it can only be accepted or rejected in toto, and there is no opportunity for amendment or consideration of various aspects which we believe should be subject to parliamentary and statutory limitations or control.
For instance, this Clause greatly widens the provisions with regard to grants for the establishment of agricultural businesses as opposed to the co-ordination or maintenance of them. In the Farm Improvement Scheme we specifically excluded that type of thing. It seems that the Minister is seeking to spread this very wide. Quite properly, he has said that there is the limitation of a total figure of £100,000 which he proposes to introduce for any single applica-

tion. That is a minor check on the sort of grants that can be introduced or curtailed by a Government. This is what we dislike most of all.
We deplore the introduction of a Clause like this to take the place of the present statutory provisions. We say that it is unwise parliamentary procedure and we do not believe that it is in the best interests of agriculture. I hope that, for that reason alone, my hon. Friends, when we have discussed this new Clause, unless the Minister is willing to withdraw it, will show their disapproval of it as they did in Committee.
Dealing with the three main categories of the criticisms we had to make, the Minister was perfectly fair in the way in which he brought these together. The first main criticism was of the withdrawal of the grants for tractors and combine harvesters. We made clear in Committee that we felt that this grant had played a useful part, or at least had been a not very satisfactory substitute for the investment allowances under which support was provided for agriculture before the present Government changed investment allowances into investment grants.
If the Minister is now arguing that these grants have not made any material change, is he arguing against figures immediately prior to the institution of the investment grants? If so, he is not comparing different categories. Before the investment grants we had investment allowances and if he is to make a comparison he should do so with the time before investment allowances were introduced. I hope that he will address himself to this point and tell us whether purchases of tractors have varied as compared with that much earlier period.
In Committee, I pointed out that those who did not buy new tractors had benefited from present arrangements and under the old investment grants, because those buying second-hand tractors were previously able to buy tractors in a good condition. That was because those farmers who could afford to buy new tractors were doing so whereas now they tend to keep them longer and thus the secondhand condition is not so good.
We have not been told what will replace these grants. We know that they will be taken away and that the total amount available will be reimbursed in some other capital general grant, but we


have not been told what it will be. The House is being asked to buy a pig in a poke. The Minister should tell us far more about this. He said that the new grants would be a great help to producers and mentioned those on the livestock side. Until we know what grants will take the place of the grants for tractors and combine harvesters we cannot judge.
It is not only the Opposition who feel strongly about this. I notice that the N.F.U. has criticised this continuously. It has said that it is glad to see that the new Clause is wide enough to permit the retention of investment grants on tractors and self-propelled harvesters and in the union's view it is imperative that these should be included. The Minister has specifically said that such grants will be taken away. I do not see the point of the N.F.U. saying this unless it felt that the Minister might change his mind. Perhaps he will tell us, before we leave this Clause, whether he has given any indication to anyone that he might retain the grants for tractors and self-propelled harvesters. Otherwise, I fail to see the significance of the Clause being widened at this point.
As to the grants not being linked to the land, we paid specific attention to this point in the 1957 Act. The Minister knows our arguments well—they were dealt with at great length in Committee—and I do not propose to enlarge on them now although some of my hon. Friends who feel strongly on it may wish to take up the point.
The Minister reminded us about the new capital grants which he announced last week at the Price Review and which he said would be a big help. To the extent that they increase by 10 percentage points, as it is put in the White Paper, the specific grants, this is a help, but we were told that capital grants were to be simplified and changed, and that they were to be brought together. Does the Minister mean that he is raising the grants by 10 percentage points until such time as he introduces his scheme, when he will bring many of them together, or will the majority of the grants continue in their separate and specific ways as they are now?
There has been a great deal of feeling that the way in which the Minister made

these announcements last week has been misleading to the farming community. This was the view taken by the county chairman of the N.F.U., which met yesterday, and by many people in the Press. The Minister talked of an additional figure for capital grants spread over two years, and that figure became related somehow to the total figure for this year's Price Review increases. This has led to a great deal of misunderstanding. The whole question of capital grants should have been kept out of that figure.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I contributed to any misunderstanding about this matter. I made it abundantly clear during my Price Review statement that the review award was not quantifiable in the conventional way. I subsequently made it perfectly clear, in answer to questions from the Press during my conference immediately after I addressed the House, and I have made it clear on several occasions since. It was clear to the N.F.U. leadership, who have been discussing this for the last six weeks. The official team and I have made this very clear, and I hope there is no imputation that we have been misleading.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that—it may be quite inadvertently—the figure given in his statement to the House a week ago of £85 million has figured largely as being the total award for this Price Review. That is not in line with the way in which the total awards have been given for Price Reviews in any previous year. In 1957, when we introduced the Farm Improvement Scheme, the amount being given was not mentioned in relation to the total, but was considered as being separate; yet now the whole of the two-year arrangement is being included. This is why I say to the Minister that—whether it is his fault or anybody else's I do not know—it is misleading to the farmers.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is not being fair; he is taking this beyond the point of equity. He knows perfectly well what I said in my statement in the House. I made it clear that the Review award was not quantifiable in the normal way. It is clear in the White Paper, it was made clear in statements to the Press, and in other statements. The right hon. Gentleman must


not pursue this is such a way as to leave a smear on me that I made this suggestion. He must withdraw it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I am not prepared to withdraw anything I have said. It is true that the Minister said:
In total, very substantial resources have been committed to the agricultural industry as a result of this Review. These, including the increased capital grants spread over a period of about two years amount to about £85 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 397.]
This figure of £85 million has been picked up and bandied about. The farming community has always said that the bandying about of large figures gives a misleading impression, and this is the point which I am putting to the Minister.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is precisely the kind of innuendo which the right hon. Gentleman is putting over now that puts this figure into the heads of people who want to believe what he is now saying.

Mr. Godber: The Minister cannot get away with that. That figure was introduced by him and by nobody else. I have given him the full quotation, perfectly fairly, including the reference to the two years. I have not tried to pretend that he did not refer to two years, but he did give this £85 million figure.
In previous years the capital grants were not included, and now he includes them not for one year but for two years. He must, therefore, accept the responsibility if any misunderstanding has arisen. If he did not wish this to happen, it would have been better if he had not mentioned the £85 million. To clear up the position, will he tell the House precisely how many millions of pounds the award amounts to for the one year?
We shall want to know, too, how capital grants will be employed, and what opportunities there will be for the farming community to take full advantage of them. The farmers have to be able to find the remainder of the money that is required, and we are told on many hands that, in view of the present credit restrictions, the farmers are not able to take up these grants. If the Government are willing to relax the credit squeeze and to reduce interest rates, the picture will be changed. In a programme broad-

cast by the B.B.C. on Saturday morning one of the leading banks made it clear that there was little opportunity for its customers to take up the grants. However much advantage there may eventually be in these new grants, it is at present very limited.
To the extent that the Clause simplifies matters for the farmers who take up capital grants, we welcome it. But, for the reasons which we have dealt with in Committee, and because the Clause is so general in its terms, we feel that it hinders rather than helps. It would have been far better to have had something which was more precise, just as we should have been told what sort of Scheme the Government have in mind. Will the scheme be introduced immediately the Bill becomes law? Are the discussions completed? If so, why cannot the Minister tell the House at least something about what he has been discussing with people outside.
I understand that with new Clause 1 we are discussing Amendment (a) to the Clause. We felt that there should be specific reference to consultation. We are not accusing the Minister of not having consultations, but we feel that it is proper to make provision for this in the Clause, and we hope that he will accept the Amendment and say something about it in replying. We do not welcome the Clause. We welcome the provision of capital grants. We are glad that they are being extended, but we still feel that it would be better if they were in a more specific form. Therefore, we hope that even now the Minister will give consideration to this aspect of the Clause.

Mr, J. Grimond: Provision of capital is becoming of greater and greater importance to agriculture. As costs rise, and as over the years Price Reviews have not recouped additional costs, the only hope for most farmers is to increase their stock and their income by greater efficiency. Marginal sources of income—such as the income from eggs—are squeezed. In my part of the world the price of lambs has not moved in the last 10 years.
I should like to ask some questions about the more detailed effects of the Clause on the class of farmer with whom I am particularly concerned, the farmers


and crofters in the extreme North of Scotland who mostly engage in the production of livestock. This Bill removes certain specific grants which were outlined in Committee and, as has already been said, it is difficult to discover what will be put in their place.
The Minister has assured us that the global sum of money will be increased, and I welcome this fact. But I hope that at some stage he will give a little more information about the type of grant which may be introduced in Orders made under this legislation and about the effect on farms, particularly farms and crofts in places like Orkney and Shetland with which I am particularly concerned.
Some of the grants which are being removed are not of great importance to us. The grant for grubbing-up orchards will go and we can dispense with that grant without too many tears. But then there is the question of tractors and combine harvesters. It may be that this does not affect farmers very much because most farms are supplied already with tractors, and there are few combine harvesters. But big changes are coming about in agriculture in the far North and everywhere else. We would welcome more information as to how this will affect farm machinery and how the Minister wishes these grants to operate.
Then there is the question of the maximum and that too seems to be a not unreasonable provision, but we are told little about the general application of the financial aspect of the general grant. Although I welcome the fact that the total amount of money will be increased, it will be no substitution for a lowering in the high rates of interest which now operate and which are among the most crippling things in agriculture today. The sooner cheaper interest rates return the better for farmers. I hope we shall be told a little more about the sort of the effects which are visualised on various types of farm.
It seems reasonable to suggest that there should be consultation, and the Minister has said that he intends to consult on the introduction of Orders, which will be of great importance. That will be the moment for the House to discuss what is intended, and we should like to be reassured that there has been

consultation with the various bodies representing the farmers concerned. Therefore, I should like to hear a little more about the likely effects of the new Clause on various types of farming.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We had a brief speech from the Minister in moving the new Clause, which did not go much further than his speech in Committee on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. On that occasion he failed completely to answer many of the points we put to him, and he even failed to refer to some of our misgivings.
On the matter of consultation, which is most important, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee:
My right hon. Friend is prepared to see whether he can satisfy hon. Members that there will be consultation, but whether this can be written in without narrowing the scope of the consultation is a question for our legal advisers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 16th December, 1970; c. 362.]
We have put down this matter again because we thought it essential that there should be this form of consultation. If the Clause goes through, the Government will be able to bring in a Statutory Instrument which cannot be changed or altered by the House, and it is vital that interested parties should have the opportunity to alter such an Instrument.
The Minister argued on that occasion that the Amendment could be read as excluding interests not actively engaged in agriculture and horticulture, and he quoted landlords, land agents and machinery manufacturers. We want these people to be included in the consultations. For that reason we have put down an Amendment to try to meet the case. We are not expert draftsmen, but we believe that the Government would not find it impossible to find a form of words to make it a statutory duty for the Minister to consult with interested parties. I hope that the Minister, in reply, will be able to say that when the Bill goes to another place there will be an amendment of this sort.
I come to the matter of tractors, which was debated at length in Committee. Here again, we had some rather sorry answers from the Minister. There is no part of the Bill which has caused so much anger and fury to the farmers as the exclusion of grants for tractors and combine harvesters. The National


Farmers' Union in its brief said on page 3:
In the Committee stage debate, the Minister felt unable to take seriously the description of the indignation throughout the industry at the proposal to withdraw the investment grant on tractors and self-propelled harvesters. Members should be under no illusion as to the extent of the industry's reaction. It is both widespread and intense.
That prompted us to wish to debate this matter and to get this provision altered as best we can.
We regard this as an obnoxious part of the Clause. The story of grants on tractors and combines has been a story of muddle and shuffle. In the space of five years there have been five different systems of grants or investment allowances. No wonder farmers do not know where they are because of all these alterations. The uncertainty for both farmers and manufacturers is most unsettling.
I was astonished to hear the Minister say today that this grant had not stimulated the sales of tractors. The fact is that it has had the opposite effect. Within the last year or two sales of tractors and combine harvesters have been drastically reduced. I have recently received a memorandum from the Agricultural Engineers' Association saying that tractor sales in 1969 as compared with 1968 fell from 38,000 to 32,000, and combine harvester sales between those two years went down from a little over 4,000 to slightly under 3,000. To take the most up-to-date figures that I have been able to get, sales of tractors in January, 1970, compared with January last year are down by 20 per cent. and sales of combine harvesters are down by 19 per cent. Those figures relate to new registrations with licensing authorities. This is a serious matter. It may be that this grant has not stimulated sales of tractors and combines, but the Government's economic policy on agriculture has meant that farmers, in spite of the grant, have not been able to buy as many of these machines as they did in the past.

5.30 p.m.

On Second Reading when the Minister dropped this alarming brick into the ocean and told us about the ending of these grants, his excuse was that it was a small grant with a limited effect. He went on to say that it had also proved to be both complex and expensive to

administer. I should like to examine his extraordinary choice of words. He says, first that it is a small grant. On these capital grants, there are 11 different schemes and an expenditure of about £35 million, so that the average expenditure on each grant is about £3 million. When one sees that the expenditure on grants for tractors and combines comes to £5½ million, or 16 per cent. of the total expenditure on grants, it is nonsense for the Minister to try to pretend that it is a small grant.

He then says that it is a complex scheme to administer. In Committee, I produced and I produce again all the forms and explanatory leaflets which are published on these capital grants. I reckon that there are 103 pages, many of them written on both sides, about all these capital grants. Those on tractors and combines cover only six pages. For the whole of the 11 grants under this Clause, there are 41 forms which have to be filled in, but for tractors and combines there are only three. In other words, 16 per cent. of the money spent on these grants goes to tractors and combines, but they involve only 6 per cent. of the paper and between 7 and 8 per cent. of the forms, so his statement about the scheme being complex is nonsense.

Finally he says that it is expensive to administer. That is shot down completely by the facts. The cost of administration on tractors and combines is £300,000. That is only 6 per cent. of the whole. Of the 11 grants, those in respect of tractors and combines are seventh in the order of costs of administration. It is clear that his claim about the scheme being expensive to administer is sheer rubbish, and I hope that he will withdraw the statement.

The tractor is the life-blood of the farm. It is the central power unit. Certainly it is the only means whereby a small farmer can get a capital grant. The Price Review has raised capital grants, but tractors are still left out. Few farmers will be able to afford the more elaborate and sophisticated types of equipment such as the augers, blowers and loaders to which the Minister has referred. It is clear that this Price Review and the policies of the Government are in favour of the rich large farmer and are to the detriment of the smaller farmer.

I turn now to a matter which bothered us a great deal in Committee and to which the Minister has referred briefly. It is the proposal under this Clause whereby it will be possible in future for large amounts of money to be paid in capital grants to factory farming operations which are not associated with land. I was surprised that for most of the Minister's speech, apart from the three Ministers and a Whip, only the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) was on the benches opposite. If hon. Members knew that the policy of this Government is to pour capital grants into factory farms which have no association with land, there would have been something of a rebellion on the Government back benches. Many hon. Members opposite cannot be aware of this. I believe that there would have been an appalling rumpus if they had known about it.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, North is extremely bothered about it, I know. I recall that he said in Committee:
I cannot believe it is his (the Minister's) intention that such systems of farming as may well develop in the future on these lines should rank for grant, attracting money which it is Parliament's intention to make available to bona fide farmers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 11th December, 1969; c. 312.]
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I cannot understand why the Government are persisting with this matter.

In the past, we have had the 50 per cent. feed rule. That is to be scrapped, and therefore there will be no limit on land associated with the project. We put down an Amendment to change the feed rule from 50 per cent. to 20 per cent. Unfortunately, the Amendment has not been selected. But I hope that the Government will understand that there will be a widespread feeling that there should still be a proviso that land should be associated with operations of this sort when we are moving clearly into the realms of factory farming and the very large units being set up by people like Mr. Eastwood and others which will be allowed these vast amounts of money.

In the Price Review statement, the Government say that there will be an upper limit of £100,000 in investment over two years which will qualify for this capital grant. But that is not the point. What the Minister has announced about the

upper limit of expenditure of £100,000 is to be welcomed, but that is not the principle which we are attacking. Many of us are concerned about the abandonment of the principle that there must be land in association with these buildings. I hope that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North will repeat his disquiet about the situation and that we shall hear his attitude towards it. I hope, too, that the Minister will say that he will consider bringing down the percentage of the feed rule to 20 or 10.

Finally, I turn to the aspect of the whole Bill which bothers us. We have been told that there are to be alterations in the grant. In Committee, the Minister said that in future there will be three rates of grant: a 30 per cent. grant for buildings, land operations and plant and machinery; a 50 per cent. rate for drainage, hill land work and amalgamations; and a 60 per cent. grant for hill land drainage. In the Price Review, we have been told that for two years there is to be a 10 percentage points rise in these rates. It is difficult to understand why the Government have found it necessary to increase capital grants by this amount. They give themselves away in paragraph 48 of the White Paper, where they say:
There have recently been signs of a down-turn …".
I must say that there have been very considerable signs of a down-turn in capital expenditure in the industry in the past year, and that has become even more evident in the last few months.
I looked with great care at the Government's estimates for farm improvement grants on buildings and so on in 1969–70 and compared them with those for 1970–71. The estimate in last year's White Paper of the expenditure on farm improvement grants was £14·9 million which, as I understand it, qualified for grant at 30 per cent. Looking at the total amount of capital work done on farms qualifying for this expenditure of £14·9 million, that would imply that there was £50 million worth of capital work being done under this scheme last year.

Next year's projected figure for expenditure on farm improvement schemes is £15·5 million. Schemes will qualify for grant at 10 percentage points higher, at 40 per cent. Although more money is being spent compared with last year, it


will be at a higher rate, and the implication is that £39 million worth of work will be done on farms next year.

There has indeed been a tragic downturn and even though larger grants are to be paid and larger incentives to be given, investment in work of this kind will be £11 million down in 1970–71 compared with 1969–70. This worries us because it shows that in an enabling provision of this kind rates of grant can go up and down like a yo-yo or even disappear.

On Second Reading we were told that tractor grants would go. Last week we were told that a 10 per cent. bonus for them would be added for two years. In the past the situation was greatly different, with specific rates of grant being written into the Statute. For example, under the 1967 Act we were told in Section 26 that there would be a 50 per cent. grant for mergers; in Section 30 we were told that there would be a 25 per cent. grant for farm improvement schemes; in Section 31 we were told that there would be a 10 per cent. grant for fixed equipment; and in Section 32 we were told that there would be a 10 per cent. grant for tractors.

That system has been scrapped. The rate of grant is not to be written into the Statute, but will appear in Orders which this House will not have a chance to amend. This bothers us most about the new Clause, particularly since the Minister did not refer to this proposal in Committee. It was sheer arrogance on his part not to refer to it in view of the disquiet which my hon. Friends had expressed.

Under his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the House, each specific grant was written into the Statute. Why is the present Minister changing that? If it was good enough for his predecessor to allow us to debate these matters through the normally parliamentary processes, why is it not good enough for the present Minister? Why did not he even refer to it in Committee?

I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a sort of parliamentary bulldozer, arrogantly disdainful of the House and not wanting the rates of grant to be properly discussed. However, I am bound to suspect that he is a bulldozer and many people will go on suspecting

that until he explains fully why he has taken this fundamental and retrograde step.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) made some cogent points to which I trust the Minister will give a full answer, particularly since I was shocked by the cursory way in which he introduced the new Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman complained bitterly—apparently he had been greatly offended—because in Committee upstairs the part of the Bill to which the new Clause relates was rejected on a snap decision. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) modestly pointed out, Standing Committees come to snap decisions. However, on that occasion many hon. Members had expressed their dislike of that part of the Bill and the Minister should not have been surprised when it was rejected on a vote.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not felt under an obligation to explain the merits of the new Clause, if it has any. I deplore this terrible habit of referring back to discussions in Standing Committee and treating the Report stage like something that should be scrubbed through as quickly and informally as possible, rather as though it is merely an embarrassment and annoyance to Ministers.
The right hon. Gentleman now has an opportunity to explain what we consider to be obscure parts of the Bill. This is an opportunity for us to ask questions in the optimistic hope that the right hon. Gentleman may have learnt something as a result of our deliberations upstairs. We are surprised, to say the least, that the right hon. Gentleman should have introduced, with hardly an apology, an abominable new Clause which he knows we dislike.

5.45 p.m.

We have not been told what amount is being taken away from the agricultural community by this provision. No justification has been given for the proposal that tractors and combine harvesters should no longer attract grants. This is disturbing many people in the agricultural community. I wrote to the Minister about it recently. Members of my local branch of the N.F.U. protested to me their


dismay of this proposal, which they have failed utterly to understand. They believe that the Minister must have taken leave of his senses to have reached this decision—and so far he has said nothing to justify it.

Consider the supervision of these complicated schemes. Parliament has a great deal more commonsense than resides in most Government Departments, the people in which live in a world almost totally of their own. I do not envy them. They draw up schemes of such hideous complexity that the ordinary mortal cannot follow their labyrinthian ways.

For example, the way in which the wheat subsidy is paid can hardly be described as a simple or sensible scheme. Schemes of this kind are only too apt to become pitfalls and snares to the unwary. Seen from a Government Department, the ordinary citizen is thought to have almost unlimited time to attend to the various forms that must be filled in. But they have other things to do. They are bored by all this form filling.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why he failed to make these schemes more simple when he was a back bencher and a junior Minister under Conservative Administrations over a period of 13 years?

Mr. Peyton: I had had a better opinion of the right hon. Gentleman than to suspect that he would make such a rotten point. The mere fact that a scheme existed under a Tory Government does not mean that I believe it to be good. The right hon. Gentleman reveals the paucity of his mind and seems to imply that anything he does must automatically be justifiable.
There is a penalty clause in this provision enabling, on summary conviction, a fine of £400 to be inflicted. Before schemes carry penalties of this kind, hon. Members should have the fullest chance of examining them, and the Resolution procedure is not adequate for that purpose.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham made it clear that we strongly object to the enabling language which is used virtually throughout the new Clause. For example, it begins by saying,

The appropriate authority may with the approval of the Treasury …
One need only contemplate the record of the Treasury to know that its approval is not necessarily a hallmark of excellence. Later we find the phrase:
… appears to the appropriate Minister to be of a capital nature. …
Why not insist that it is of a capital nature? We then read:
… is approved by the appropriate Minister for the purposes of a grant under the scheme.
Paragraph (4) reads:
If at any time after the appropriate Minister has approved any expenditure for the purposes of a grant under such a scheme it appears to that Minister—

(a) that any condition subject to which the approval was given or the grant has been made has not been complied with; or
(b) that any work in respect of expenditure on which the approval was given has been badly done,"—

or that some information was false or misleading,
the appropriate Minister may revoke the approval".
The Minister must give the person concerned an opportunity to explain his views, but once again we are adopting procedures which make the Minister judge, jury and prosecutor in his own court, and I do not like this method.
Paragraph (5) says:
If any person, for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person any grant under such a scheme, knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.
This is a heavy penalty, and I do not believe that these penalties should be written into schemes without very careful scrutiny by Parliament.
In withdrawing these grants, the Minister is totally wrong. He has made no serious attempt to discharge the burden of explanation which lies upon him. In the new Clause, he is taking upon himself blanket powers which are unnecessary and offensive. Socialist Ministers are yielding far more readily to the temptation to take the bureaucratic path, to consider what is bureaucratically convenient and administratively comfortable, very often at the expense of what is right and just—and this is most offensive.
I hope that the Minister will take these objections seriously, that he will not just think that it was an unfortunate accident


that the Standing Committee thought it right to throw out an obnoxious Clause. I hope that he will digest the fact that this is offensive and that the onus is on him to justify a far too large addition to Ministerial powers, and particularly to explain in detail what he contemplates removing from agriculture as a result of any scheme under these powers, and why, in the name of conscience, he is removing a very useful form of help—the grant for tractors and combine harvesters.

Mr. Henry Clark: I listened with some interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who left us in no doubt that there are occasions on which the excellent work of the Ministry of Agriculture is not fully appreciated by the general public. One of the troubles is that the Ministry realises this and, when it has been doing a reasonably good job, it occasionally decides to stop doing it, just to show the difference. This is the only possible explanation for the sudden removal of the grant for tractors and combine harvesters.
It is like the situation which occurred when, for a number of years, there were generous grants for liming land. This country was getting about the right amount of lime on to agricultural land, but, because the level of liming stayed fairly constant, the Ministry began to believe that its grant was not being fully appreciated, so it stopped it, just to see the difference. In my part of the country, senior agriculture officers are beginning to suggest that the country needs more lime and that the farmers should do more. But the Ministry has the answer in its own hands.
What will be the result of cutting off these grants for tractors and combine harvesters? It is not intended to stop farmers waltzing into showrooms and writing orders for large and expensive pieces of equipment. No one in my constituency buys a combine harvester without a great deal of thought: it is not a casual decision. They think pretty hard before they buy a tractor.
Most of the farms in my constituency have only one tractor. Statistics can be made to look different, because some farmers maintain a decrepit tractor for dirty work, which occasionally leads agricultural economists to say that there are too many tractors on British farms. But

many farmers in my constituency really have only one tractor each. It is absolutely vital that that tractor should be in good working order throughout the reason. The result of removing this grant will be quite simple. Most people will make their tractor do one or two more years. Farmers will be flogging away to keep an old tractor going which should not be running or should not be the key to the efficiency of a farm.
This is a case of the Ministry taking back a grant just to prove how good it has been in the past. I cannot see any other justification for it. The Ministry will say, "Were we not doing a wonderful job? If we put the grant back won't they appreciate it?"
I turn to the most explosive matter in the Clause and in Amendment (c) to the Clause. If people begin to realise the large sums of Government money which are being paid to industrialists to take from the farmer one of the few regular and profitable lines which he has, there will be an explosion which, fortunately, this Government will not be there to see. One of the classic and unfortunate things about farming is that, when any production becomes profitable, it is taken by industry and commerce out of the hands of agriculture. The broiler industry is a classic instance. The answer always is that production in large units is more efficient and will supply cheaper food to the workers, but in egg production there is considerable doubt, on the straight economics of production in reasonably-sized units—5,000, 10,000 and 15,000 hens—and production in multi-thousand units in old factories and industrial buildings
Four years ago, in an Adjournment debate, I pointed out that a hen produces an egg for exactly the same number of grains of corn in a small unit as in a big one. The level of animal husbandry is rather better in the smaller units and the labour used on family farms often cannot be used in any other way.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I remember that debate, but the hon. Gentleman should realise that some of those farms have been precluded because of their lack of land. They will get the benefit of this Clause as well as the big men whom he is emphasising so much.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Clark: The Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that the big men are prepared to pay money in through a considerable period simply and solely to drive the small man out and corner a very profitable angle of food production in the country for themselves. Let us be clear that the economics of production in small units and in large units is largely distorted by the commercial practice where the very big units can buy from the producers of chicks and cages at cost leaving the smaller farmer to pay the full price and pay for research and profits. This largely allows the big unit to buy at such low prices.
If one takes a broad view of the economics of large and small egg-producing units, it is doubtful whether one would not find that the small unit comes out more economically on a national level. If the hon. Gentleman cannot follow my argument I believe that he should study this question more deeply. The fact remains—and this is the relevant point—that if one takes away, as one may well do by paying subsidies to the large and industrial units, the farmyard production from the small farmer, the Ministry of Agriculture in a few years will find itself with a far larger bill because it will be paying far larger subsidies for amalgamations and to get the small farmer out. There will then have to be higher prices to give him the standard of living to which he is entitled, simply because the Ministry of Agriculture has helped to take part of his livelihood away from him. I find it hard to understand why the Government cannot accept both Amendments (b) and (c) to the Clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing Amendment (c) in this series.

Mr. Clark: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it does come into the whole question of agricultural grants and it is rather difficult not to carry this argument on. When one looks at the operation of farming in this country and the problems that farmers will be facing in the future, I find it extremely difficult to understand why the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Listening to the debate so far, I find it

difficult to appreciate that the real issue is whether the Bill should go on with the Clause included or without it. This seems to me a different issue from that which we have been discussing so far.
I was not a member of the Committee which considered this Bill so I come to it with a fairly fresh mind. As I see it, the Minister's case is that he seeks to bring under the one umbrella the large and multifarious grants now payable in agriculture, and I am certainly in favour of that as a broad objective. Nor do I find it a valid criticism of this provision that there are enabling powers. It is difficult to see how this kind of umbrella-like structure under which the grant can be paid can be put into practice without enabling Clauses. These enabling Clauses provide for far greater flexibility.
I should not regard it as a criticism that, for example, the grants last week were put up from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. or from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. for a short period in view of the difficult times which agriculture was passing through and is still passing through. This degree of flexibility is to be commended. We should not always seek to have, as it were, a rigid formula, because economic circumstances vary a great deal. By and large, I should have thought that the agricultural community would benefit rather than lose by having these enabling Clauses. This is the test which I would apply on behalf of my constituents. The question is: are the farmers likely to benefit or lose through this provision, broadly speaking? I think that they are likely to benefit.
It is a complicated Clause, and I want to express three doubts which I am sure affect hon. Members on both sides of the House with regard to this matter.
First, no doubt the Minister's case would include the tractor and combine harvester grant, which is fairly new and has operated for about four years. I suppose that in many ways it is an odd man out as far as grants are concerned. But the Minister in his argument today laid stress on the fact that a farmer paying the standard rate of tax would gain a certain benefit and that farmers paying a higher rate of tax would receive greater benefit. The Minister must appreciate the point—especially with regard to the tractors—that to a small farmer


it is very often his only big capital purchase in a decade. This makes it very difficult if a farmer is buying a tractor. He has been eyeing it and thinking of the day when he will be able to buy it. For an outlay of £900 he will get a grant of £90, and this is a big factor in his mind particularly as he often has little capital to spare, and it is the only capital grant that he receives. This is why small farmers particularly attach so much importance to the grant. Would the Minister say a little more about this because it affects farmers in his constituency as it does in mine?
My second doubt is of a much more general nature. It is that there is a widespread feeling that far too high a percentage of the capital going into farming goes into the hands of those who do not need it. The maxim "to him that hath shall be given" seems to be almost a guiding light in this matter. The Tory Party is shedding crocodile tears over the small farmer, because I did not see very much difference when it was in power with regard to this matter.
Suffice it to say that I think the ceiling suggested by the Minister of £100,000 over two years is far too high. If one is now anticipating a grant at the rate of 40 per cent., a grant of £100,000 would mean a total investment of £¼ million over two years. That is a large investment for agriculture on any view. Has not the Minister set this target too high? Would it not really ensure, as one fears, that far too high a percentage of the money available will go into the hands of those who do not really need it? I should like the Minister to expand a little on this when he replies because I think it is a matter that exercises the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House. These grants are available to enable us to maintain a low-cost agriculture and low food prices, but also, I think, to maintain farming, taking a certain social view of farming.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I do not want to be misunderstood, and I want to clarify the point and explain to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that it is the total figure involved in the scheme which is £100,000.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation, but I still think that it is a high

figure, although, obviously, it is not anything like as high as the figure which I had in mind. The reason why I raise this query is that when there is a complicated Clause of this kind before the House, and we know that Orders will in future be introduced under its terms, it is incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to meet some of these points as he is obviously doing today.
The third point disturbing me is subsection (5), which reads:
If any person, for the purpose of obtaining for himself or any other person any grant under such a scheme, knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.
It provides a very heavy fine for an offence which will not necessarily involve any element of dishonesty, and that is wrong. There is no reference in the subsection to the farmer having obtained a grant dishonestly or with intent to defraud. On the contrary, if he makes a mistake he is regarded as having made it recklessly. Suppose that, on the last day on which he can make the claim, he calls out to his wife, "What was that figure?" and she gives him the wrong one. He is apparently deemed to have put down that figure recklessly and is liable to a fine of £400.
The House should not lightly pass this kind of provision into law. I hone the Minister will look at this again to see whether the word "dishonesty" or the phrase "with intent to defraud" cannot be inserted. If there were dishonesty or intent to defraud in a claim, no one would make this kind of objection.
With these qualifications, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new Clause.

Mr. William Baxter: Like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), by and large I support the idea behind the Clause. Like him, I feel that the grant for machinery should receive careful consideration. No doubt it has already done so, but I suggest that it should get further consideration.
When all is said and done, it is hard for a farmer to be denied a grant for machinery when the small building contractor next door gets a grant for buying the same kind of equipment for his opera-


tions. It causes a certain amount of discontent and dissatisfaction, and criticism of the Government. Although one cannot simply compare one with the other, nevertheless comparison is made. I urge my right hon. Friend to give further consideration to this aspect.
Another aspect which disturbs me relates to the carrying out of work under subsection (4)(b). If the work has been badly done, then this constitutes a factor which must mitigate against the giving of a grant. But who decides? Who is responsible for the work being badly done? The farmer employs a building contractor to do it, and that contractor does not make as good a job as he should. In the opinion of the inspector, but not in the opinion of the farmer, who is a simple chap who has been accustomed to doing such work himself, rather more roughly than a tradesman, the work is badly done. The farmer, nevertheless, thinks that it is to his satisfaction and expects to get the grant. But the inspector says, "This does not meet the requirements, so you will not get the grant". He puts the farmer in a difficult position.
It is not unlike what has been the practice in the past when a farmer sought a grant for land improvement for taking large stones out of the ground, for example, but inadvertently started taking up a few stones before approval had come from the Ministry for the work. Because he had started the work by putting a spade in the ground to remove one or two boulders, his application was regarded as nullified.
When legislating for matters like this, dealing with simple people engaged in such projects, we should be as reasonable and amenable as possible in meeting their requirements, and we should not lay down rigid rules and regulations which are unbending when an individual has made an error of judgment or a simple mistake. This is the one fault I find with this aspect of the Clause. Naturally, I do not approve of work being badly done, but there should be ample opportunity for the farmer to be paid a reasonable proportion of the grant even if the work does not come up to the full expectation of the Ministry official.

6.15 p.m.

Subsection (5) is very difficult, as the hon. and learned Gentleman indicated.

One understands that a person who knowingly tries to "do" the Government should be penalised and a fine imposed. But the word which troubles me is "recklessly". We all from time to time do reckless things but are not willingly and knowingly trying to "do" someone. The word "recklessly" should be deleted.

I do not object to anyone knowingly putting something false into a statement for grant purposes being liable to a heavy penalty. Whether or not it is good practice to put into a provision a figure of £400 for a penalty is debatable, but the degree of the crime committed should be taken into consideration. For example, in a certain case it may not be a question of the farmer knowingly trying to "do" the Government and there may be mitigating circumstances, such as a genuine mistake. For such circumstances, a nominal fine should be provided. It is wrong to say that in all cases where something of this kind has happened a fine of £400 should be imposed.

All these matters require a little more thought, even at this late stage. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I regret that I was not on the Standing Committee. I believe that the principle of the new Clause is good but that the wording must be tightened up.

Mr. Peter Mills: We, too, were sorry that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) was not on the Standing Committee. I well recall the many Standing Committees on agricultural Bills on which I have had the privilege of serving with him, and the fine part he played in them. Indeed, there were occasions when the Government benches were utterly silent except for his voice, and he made most interesting contributions. We certainly all missed him this time.
I want to make the situation clear about this new Clause and the Government's lack of action in Committee. The Clause was originally thrown out of the Bill because we on this side disagreed with the Government. We planned to beat them, and beat them we did. It is no good their claiming that it was trickery. They were not prepared to back up their policy with enough supporters in the Committee to see that it went through. This point must be made clear. There


was no trickery. It was a well-thought-out plan. We were determined to see that the provision did not go through, and the Government had not the initiative and the courage and the troops to see that it went through.
This new Clause would, in a sense, enable the industry to have a more unified and streamlined capital grants scheme, and it all sounds very nice. Most of us would agree to that principle. If it does go through, it will save administrative costs. But before the Government take credit for all this there are many things we would like to ask about the new, unified and streamlined grants scheme.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is listening because this is quite important. I understand that at present there are 41 different forms. I have them here with me. Yet I understand we are to have a single new form to deal with these cases. What does it look like? Where is it? We have not had a chance of seeing it, and I would have thought that at least the Committee ought to have seen it before passing this new Clause. The interesting thing is that there are 103 pages here. For scrub clearance there are four pages of forms, for fixed equipment there are 13 pages, for tractors and harvesters there are six—though, regrettably, they will not be needed now.
One could go on with dozens of pages of forms all of which have to be filled in; and, if my memory is correct, when I have had to fill them in it has usually had to be done in triplicate. So it is really a matter of about 309 pages of forms to be filled in. Yet in this new, unified and streamlined capital grants scheme there is to be one form. It is going to be very interesting to see whether this amount of writing and facts can be condensed into one form. We ought to hear the Minister's views on this. Perhaps he will be able to circulate the new form amongst us, because it is very important.
I turn now to the need for a ceiling on individual grants to prevent too much money being absorbed by a few. I welcome what the Minister has said. I was a little confused and thought that the £100,000 was the total grant under the scheme. I am glad that that has been clarified. But I agree that this is a very large sum of money. Of course, it is much easier for the bigger people

than for smaller people to take advantage of this. There could be the danger that far too many large farmers take advantage of this while many small farmers just cannot do so.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, is he quite happy in his own mind that this is not a phantom rather than a reality and that one cannot get round the £100,000 limit by dividing a scheme into sub-schemes each of £100,000?

Mr. Mills: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), as always, is right. If anyone knows the facts and figures, it is he, and I hope that the Minister will consider what he has put forward. I have no doubt that he is absolutely correct in what he says and that there will be people who will try to find a way round it. That is a point worth mentioning, and something for the Minister to watch. My fear is that the small man will again become disillusioned about this. He will see the larger man taking the bigger share of the cake all the time. Speaking for a county with a very large number of small farmers, I would say that that is a point which should be watched very carefully by the Minister and the Ministry in their dealings in the future.
Then there are the problems of buildings divorced from land. Again, I believe very great care needs to be taken before grants are given. Some people, and particularly the very large egg producers, will try to get away with this, and it is important that the provisions of the Clause are used for the intended purpose—to encourage genuine farmers to improve their holdings and farms and enable them to take advantage of these grants.
Turning to tractors and self-propelled harvesters, I have still not heard to my satisfaction any reply from the Minister or the Government why their view has changed. In a Committee on a far-off agriculture Bill the Government stressed that it would help the small producer. I remember only too well, as I said in Committee, how I sought to support the small farmer in this country and got nasty looks from various people; and, in a way, rightly so. But I cannot for the life of me understand the reason why the Government have changed their view on this.
I believe the larger men would much rather have investment allowances, but for the smaller man it is perhaps some help to have investment grants. I would repeat that the purchase of a new tractor is a major step in the life of a small farmer. I can honestly say I have not purchased a new tractor for many years. I continue to use my old one and get it repaired and go on and on. It is a major step to pay out over £1,000 or more for a new tractor, and many small farmers look upon it as a major event in their farming career. Once again it seems hard to understand the Minister's views and why there has been this sudden change.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, perhaps he would be good enough to meet me in the Lobby and tell me what make of tractor he employs.

Mr. Mills: I am a Fordson man, so that there is no need to change. Perhaps I may have a free one after saying that!
We have been given a promise in the Price Review, and that is very relevant to the new Clause and the increase in the rate of capital grants. The Minister talks about the £20 million extra which will flow from the new Clause, but when one looks at the Appendix to the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees 1970 and at the Estimates for 1970–71 one sees that there is there an estimate of just under £4 million.
What is the Minister really saying? On the one hand, he is saying that there is an estimate of just under £4 million, and on the other hand he is making a public statement that £20 million will arise from the new Clause. That needs some explanation. In considering the new Clause there is no doubt in my mind that the small producer and farmer, will in many ways be unable to participate in these capital grants. At the present moment credit and new capital facilities are both difficult and very costly to obtain. This means that the smaller man is at some disadvantage. In other words, he would be unable to put his share of the investment alongside what the new Clause seeks to do. This is a very real problem.
I believe that in many cases the smaller man will be unable to benefit from the improved grant or from the

Price Review; and the small farmer looks upon this as an exercise which is something of a red herring. I can assure the Minister that there is a very strong feeling, certainly in the South-West, as shown by the number of people who have got in touch with me, that this really is a red herring because the small farmer cannot participate. In my opinion, it is not much use bringing forward promises and things of this kind in a Price Review unless the small farmers can participate in it. In many cases they cannot, because of the extremely difficult position of credit and the cost. What we really need is not so much this new Clause, although, of course, it will be welcome to many, but a better end price.

6.30 p.m.

Going home in the train I was amused as I turned over in my mind all that happened last week. I thought of myself going to my bank manager and saying: "We have a new Clause which will allow capital grants for this and that. The Minister has promised in the Price Review that there is another £20 million." My bank manager would probably say to me: "You are to take no part in this. What I want to see, before you undertake any more expansion or take up of these capital grants, is a reduction in your overdraft." This is what most bank managers will be saying. It is no good the Minister shrinking down into his Bench. This is a fact.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am following the hon. Gentleman with great interest. He is putting one side of the case. I take it that, in addition to mentioning the capital grants scheme to his bank manager he would also indicate what additional income he would derive as a farmer, because his bank manager can make an assessment only if both sides are considered.

Mr. Mills: The Minister is right. That is what the bank manager would tell me today. He would say: "Let us see how far these improvements in the end price we will get work out in your case. When your bank balance begins to improve, we can then take advantage of these capital grants."
The problem with the new Clause is that farmers will not have the where-withall to carry it out. In many cases,


particularly of small farmers, this is a red herring which distracts from the real problem in agriculture. It is not fair of the Minister to make out what he has done and what the new Clause does, because it is extremely difficult to find the wherewithal to carry it out.
Looking at the new Clause in detail, we see in the first line,
The appropriate authority may with the approval of the Treasury".
Again, we have the words
with the approval of the Treasury".
I make no bones about bringing this matter up again. I should feel happier if the Treasury were more on our side in these matters. In many instances I fear that it is not. I look forward to a policy in future when it will be on our side.
Subsection (1)(c) refers to expenditure which
is approved by the appropriate Minister".
Again, I raise the problem of the approval that we get from the Ministry for certain schemes. I suggest that many of them are too costly and elaborate. Many farmers find that if they embark upon this course of applying for a grant for an improvement, the standards demanded by the Ministry are too high. We do not want to go back to the days when we used rough sticks, old sleepers, and goodness knows what for farm buildings. There must be standards. However, I suggest that the Ministry should look more carefully at the use of cheaper materials and alternative types of buildings.
Agriculture should be a flexible industry. A man can put up a building and find within a year or two that it is not suitable, because new designs and types of production have come in, and it is not always possible to adapt an existing building. If a building has cost an enormous sum, it is difficult to leave it on one side. One has to try to adapt it. I hope that the Minister's approval will be more flexible and will take into account some of the cheaper methods and materials.
I turn now to line 40, which says,
or by such instalments at such intervals or times".
This presents another problem for farmers, particularly at this time. Many

would like to take part in an improvement scheme, but they find that, even when the grant is given by instalments, there is difficulty in financing it. The builder usually wants the total sum paid so that the receipted invoice can go to the Ministry for the grant to be paid. This is a difficult time for farmers, particularly with the problem of credit and its high cost. Many banks are not able or prepared to cover them. Therefore, I hope that not only will there be speedy payment, but that large instalments might be paid to help the farmer.
My last point concerns lines 49 and 50, which refer to work,
on which the approval was given has been badly done.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, who raised this matter, but I go further. I have experience of an instance where work on a road was passed by the Minister's inspector, and within three or four months the road had started to deteriorate very rapidly. In fact, it will have to be redone.
What happens? The payment has been made. The farmer, trusting the Ministry's inspector who certified that it was up to standard, now finds that it is not and he has no claim. The Ministry is not prepared to back up the farmer in his claim against the builder. This is a serious matter. If the Government are prepared to put in a provision that where work has been badly done there can be a delay in payment or a withdrawal of payment, there should be some responsibility to see that the work continues and that, whatever the improvement, it is satisfactory after two or three months. This is an important point, because I believe that a lot of shoddy work is going into many of these improvement schemes.
I have asked many questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer many of the problems that have been raised. The industry is anxious about these matters, and I hope that it can be reassured on many of them.

Mr. David Crouch: Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, at a minimum calculation, there are 19 debates ahead of us. Brief speeches will help. Mr. Crouch.

Mr. Crouch: The Minister will know why I consider the new Clause unsatisfactory. It does not contain the import of new Clause 9
Amendment of section 31 of Agriculture Act, 1967",
which is not being taken today.
As we said in the House this afternoon, new Clause 1 is too loosely worded and is incomplete. The Minister has not done his job properly in presenting the House with the new Clause as it is. I ask the Minister to think again and to tighten up the regulations that he will impose concerning grants to farmers. I am concerned that the Minister should impose some restriction on the use of capital grants for fixed equipment such as buildings.
The Minister should remember that he has an obligation to take note of town and country planning. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, he was required to look at this question under the provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1967. He must take into account the impact which a farmer's activities may make on those around him. It is possible today for a farmer to erect a building to quite a large size without planning permission under the 1962 Act. I am surprised that the Minister did not think of putting a subsection into this new Clause to cover this requirement and tighten it up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) spoke of his concern about grants being made excessively to the encouragement of intensive farming. I know of cases in Kent where under regulations based on the 1967 Act it is possible for a farmer to erect a building of up to 5,000 sq. ft. extent and to a certain height, and within two years to erect another building of the same size, all without planning permission. In another two years he can erect another such building. In no time there could be an intensive factory farm development of 20,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. all established without planning permission.
It is necessary for some restriction to be applied. I am not saying that this kind of thing should not occur, but that the Minister should remember that when it occurs others can suffer because of it. It may be that such buildings could be sited too close to a village and make an impact which would spoil village life.
I am not against factory farming and grants towards intensive farming, which is part of our agricultural way of life and has an essential part in contributing to food production, but some restrictions should be observed. It is for the Minister to take it upon himself to realise that grants to farmers might produce unpleasant consequences such as those I have described.
In all circumstances in which such development can occur on a large scale and can affect the architectural amenity, the rural amenity——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The olfactory amenity.

Mr. Crouch: —or, as my hon. Friend says, the olfactory amenity, this should be borne in mind.
I do not intend to speak for long because I may get out of order by talking about the new Clause which is in my name and which has not been selected. The Government new Clause is too loosely worded. I hope that the Minister will think again and include in it some restriction on the application of grant in the way I have described so that there should not be absolute permission to erect buildings anywhere successively, as it allowed under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. I hope that he will find it possible to consult his right hon. Friend to see whether some such limitation could be put into this Measure. I do not want it to be thought that I would seek to impose restrictions on the farmer.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Member is drifting into discussion of his new Clause, and that Clause is out of order.

Mr. Crouch: I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of drifting in any way. Perhaps the Minister has got the drift of my remarks, and perhaps I have said enough.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I apologise to the Minister for going out of the Chamber during the early part of his speech and not returning until after he had finished. I also apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for not hearing part of his speech. This was due to a rather important engagement. If the Minister has already dealt with


some of the points I wish to put, I ask him to accept my apologies in advance.
This is a complicated Clause. It seems terrible that we need to have a Clause written in this way with 89 lines to amalgamate the various grants. I agree that in principle probably it is the right thing to do, but the farmer will be immediately hit by the fact that under the Clause he has a cash grant taken away from him. The tractor-combine grant was something which he received in actual cash. The Minister will realise that cash is short in the industry. Because cash is so short, the total of £20 million of grants has been received rather like a red rag by the farming industry. Farmers have felt that the grant is out of their reach. They have to put up twice as much money to get the grant. Where can they get the extra capital when already they are right up against the ceiling of bank loans?
I draw attention to the history of grants for tractors and combines. I think I am right in saying that before January, 1966, there were 30 per cent. investment allowances which were introduced by the Conservative Administration in 1962 After January, 1966, the Government scrapped the investment allowance and introduced the 10 per cent. investment grant. The then Minister described it as something which would be extremely helpful to the smaller farmer because the larger farmer had far more benefit from the investment allowance than from this grant. It seems extraordinary that this grant, when cash is so important and more important to the small man, should be swept away by this move. It came like a bombshell when the Minister announced it in his Second Reading speech. This has caused more soreness among small farmers and has been repeated to me over the last month more times than almost any other grant matter.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) who spoke about trying to get the use of cheaper building materials. I deal with many applications for grants for buildings. Often one has to put up a far more expensive building so as to conform with the Ministry's rather out-of-date specifications instead of a cheaper form of building which would suit the purpose quite well. I remember how much money was wasted in the past in building cow houses which had to be scrapped. One

realises how much money was wasted in putting up very complicated buildings when in many cases pole barns, made from timber cut in the local woods, would provide shelter for implements, straw, hay and such like. Yet the farmer could get no grant for them. I have often found as a land agent that it is far cheaper to go for a cheap building of that type than to take up the Ministry's grant, but I am sure that the building I erect with no grant will see the job through, will do just as well and will often not use such expensive material as steel, which is in short supply.
This is the wrong time to withdraw the grant for tractors and combines. Over the whole history of the grants the average farmer has been bewildered, if not worse. The tractor manufacturer is also fed up. He sees fits and starts in the demand for tractors. I am told that the demand for new tractors is very low, and after the very bad two years we have had the demand for repairs of old tractors has increased tremendously. There has been a tremendous change in my district in the machinery merchant's business over the past couple of years.
The question of who would get the grant concerned us greatly in Committee. We are in a dilemma here, because both sides of the House wish to see the smaller man receive much of the grant, but I am very concerned that a large proportion will go to the Eastwood type of farmer. The Minister considered this very carefully, and he may have said in his speech something about how he will prevent this happening, apart from the ceiling. I think that it will be a very weak ceiling. I can see masses of small companies being formed to draw right up to the limit. The right hon. Gentleman promised us in Committee that he would consider the matter further, and if he has already made a statement on it I shall be glad to read it in HANSARD. We are in great danger of driving more smaller, good farmers off the land if we push the business of animal production, which should be profitable and is often the backbone of their livelihood, over to the large man who will do it as an industrial business.
The Minister raised the question of looking at the cash received as well as the grants. He spoke about looking at both sides of the picture when replying to my hon. Friend the Member for


Torrington. May we do that? I understand that about £54 million of cash will be put into the industry against a cost increase of £60 million. There will be an addition of £10 million in fertiliser grants, but I believe that it will be paid only to farmers who receive fertiliser on their farms after the 19th of this month. The vast majority of farmers have already taken delivery of their fertiliser this year, so as we are talking about the improvement in the farmers' position for this season I believe that the Minister has deluded the industry if he wishes it to be thought that the fertiliser grants will improve——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help me if the hon. Gentleman can say whether fertiliser grants come under these farm capital grants.

Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Minister referred to the matter in replying to my hon. Friend about the cash side of the present situation, and I thought that I could follow that up.
The Minister referred to £21 million being expended over the next two years—and this does relate to these capital grants. I believe that this £21 million-worth of grants and the whole grant system is a mirage to a drowning man, which is what the industry is now. The farmer sees a promise of those grants, but cannot reach them because he does not have the cash. He has not got the money in his account, and he cannot be given it by the bank manager or anyone else. The holding out of this mirage of grants which the vast majority of farmers cannot take advantage of is like a red rag to a bull. It will enrage the farming community against the scheme altogether.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I think that the House generally and agriculture will welcome the reintroduction of the Clause. I am not unmindful of the fact that when it first came up for discussion in the Committee members of the Committee received a "cyclo" from the National Farmers' Union. That is not unusual. I do not think that there is any body more ardent in the supplying of Members of Parliament with cyclos than the N.F.U. It stated in the first paragraph:—
The administration of the present schemes has become complex and has led to anomalies.

The rationalisation, simplification and streamlining of the schemes should result in considerable saving of time of both farmers and officials handling the schemes and should expedite approval.
To get a measure of approval from the N.F.U. on those lines is very welcome. I believe that farmers throughout the country would take a very dim view of it if the Clause were defeated.
Whatever may be the state of agriculture, there are, as in all other industries, those who are very progressively-minded and who from time to time change their methods of production and adopt new ideas. Whenever new ideas are adopted or methods of production change, expense is inevitably involve. Therefore, any financial grants that can be obtained from Government are always welcome. Agriculture is no exception to the rule, and therefore if the Clause is not carried and grants do not become available for further modernisation or change of policy within the industry agriculture will feel very strongly about the situation.
We can argue about emphasis of detail within the Clause, such as the method of its application and the degree to which one aspect of assistance may be compared to another. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) referred to fears I expressed in Committee that some people who may participate in a form of factory farming, and who have no direct, real interest in agriculture as such, might benefit rather more extensively than most of us would desire, to the detriment of the bona fide farmer. My right hon. Friend gave certain assurances and I hope that those assurances will be reiterated. I instanced in Committee big units close to ports, and which often rely on grains imported at a cheap rate because in some way or another they are damaged. These people have no real interest in farming, and I believe it is the intention of my right hon. Friend and the Government that genuine farmers should be assisted.

7.0 p.m.

Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will reiterate the point which he has made that genuine farmers will stand to gain the most of such grants as are available under the Bill, and that they will be fairly distributed to the genuine people engaged in the industry with which most of us are proud to be associated. I cannot over-emphasise this, because


of the trend which, one knows, is taking place in this country. This is why I want reassurance from my right hon. Friend.

It was a bit of a fluke that this Clause was not carried in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Fair enough, but it was one of the snap decisions, taken when no one expected it. One expects the Opposition to act on those lines in Committee and no one would cavil at this, but I sincerely believe that the industry, as an industry, wants us now to do our job seriously and to get this Clause into the Bill.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Nobody, I think, would argue with the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) when he says that the farmers will be delighted to see an end of forms. We are all sick and tired of form filling, both in the agricultural community and elsewhere.
What we on this side of the House complain about is the vagueness with which the new Clause is drawn. That has been the burden of most of the remarks of my hon. Friends. We just do not know what the Minister has in mind, and we shall not know what he has in mind till he produces the various schemes, which, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out, certainly will be debatable but will not be amendable. We want to know exactly what goes on.
I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on the 1967 Bill, but I understand that the then Minister of Agriculture, now the Lord President of the Council, when speaking on what was Clause 32(2), which made allowances for tractors, justified the new Measure by saying that it would help the small farmer who did not pay income tax. The present Minister of Agriculture said in Committee, and he repeated it again this afternoon:
The withdrawal of the grant"—
that is, for tractors and combine harvesters—
must be seen in perspective. … There is no evidence that the withdrawal of the grants would in itself have any effect on productivity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 11th December, 1969; c. 344.]
A little later he said, as he said this afternoon:
Under the present tax arrangements, we know that the vast majority of farmers will be

able to claim compensatory tax allowances which would significantly reduce the effect on them of the withdrawal of the grant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B; 11th December, 1969; c. 345.]
The Government cannot have it both ways. It is no good with one voice, that of one Minister of Agriculture, telling us it will help the non-taxpayer when with another voice they say that farmers will be able to recoup by tax repayments. It is just absolute nonsense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) quoted from a circular from the National Farmers Union of England and Wales. I should like to quote from a circular sent—to Scottish Members, anyway—by the Scottish National Farmers Union. This is what it had to say:
Over the past three years allowances for agricultural machines have whittled away. Until 1966 an investment allowance was available on all our machines and implements. It was then removed, and replaced by the present system of investment grant for tractors and self-propelled harvesters only. This was supposed to be worth the same amount of money to the industry as the old allowance. Now even the investment grants are to disappear.
This is the crucial sentence which I would like the hon. Gentleman to hear:
In the industry's present economic situation the proper course would have been to extend these grants to cover a wider range of machinery. The very nature of farming is such that most of its machinery must be mobile rather than static.
That is a very important point.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said, the important thing about the tractor investment grant is not the fact that it encourages so much the use of new tractors on the larger farms but that it makes available secondhand tractors for the smaller farmers.
In my constituency, where the average size of farm is about 65 acres, this is a very important point indeed, because in the north-east of Scotland the tractor is literally the workhorse on the farm and is absolutely essential. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee, to have good, efficient production we must have a turnover of secondhand tractors. I fear very much that with the withdrawal of these grants the supply of secondhand tractors will greatly diminish. To put this matter into perspective, I should like to quote from figures which


were supplied to me by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. In the interests of brevity I will omit harvesters. In England and Wales the number of new tractors claiming grant in the last financial year was 82,805; in Scotland it was 11,599; in the north-east of Scotland, my own part of the world, it was 2,319. That is, 20 per cent. of all the new tractors registered in Scotland and grant-claiming were in that part of the world. That gives some indication of the extent of the damage which will be done by the withdrawal of this grant.
To emphasise this further, in a report by A. B. K. Tracy, "Significant Trends in Farm Finance Results in the North of Scotland, 1964―67", taking machinery the costs went up from £5·7 per acre to £6·4 per acre. I realise, of course, that this includes other kinds of machinery than tractors, but tractors obviously play a very important part. Taking the figures to 100, it means that there was an increase of 14 per cent. of machinery costs in those three years.
By removing these investment grants from tractors the Government will do irreparable harm. It may be the final straw that breaks the camel's back. Because of the stringent restriction on bank lending and the other imposts forced on the industry by the present Government, many small farmers in my area and other remote areas will go to the wall—and the whole nation will allow that to happen at its cost. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will succeed in defeating the Government yet again on this Clause.

Mr. Richard Body: I support every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) has just said. The Minister has chopped and changed far too much over the investment grants for tractors and combines. There have been no fewer than five changes, I believe, in the last five years. From 1962 to 1966, farmers knew where they were, with 30 per cent. investment allowances. Then, this Government—the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, we know—instituted the system of investment grants at 10 per cent. That arrangement survived only one year, and then they increased it to 15 per cent. Then they changed their minds yet again and reduced it to 10 per cent. a year ago.
Now, they propose to abolish investment grants altogether for this equipment.
For an industry which depends on a continuity of policy and needs to plan ahead as much as it can, these are far too many changes. The repeated argument for investment grants was that the small farmer needed them because so often he was not paying enough income tax to enable him to take advantage of investment allowances. That was the argument in 1966. On the face of it, it makes some sense, but now the right hon. Gentleman is saying something quite different. He told the Standing Committee a few weeks ago that the vast majority of farmers will be able to claim compensatory tax allowances for tractors and combines. But if his argument holds water now, if it is valid in 1970, how much more valid was it in 1966, when small farmers were paying more tax because their incomes were higher. The small farmer will be worse off as a result of the Minister's decision——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Member is talking about Amendment (b) which is out of order. He should come to the new Clause.

Mr. Body: I understand that the Government intend not to include tractors and combines. I am drawing to the Minister's attention an omission from the Clause. My argument is that, with this omission, the new Clause will be defective and will cause great hardship, particularly to small farmers.
The right hon. Gentleman has also said that a tractor is normally acquired in any case by the farmer. That may be true so far as he needs a tractor, but many farmers in the past 12 months have postponed the purchase of a tractor. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), they are still using tractors which, with all due respect to that Fordson, should not be on the farm any longer. A tragic number of fatal accidents are caused by tractors, and many of them by old tractors. It is very serious that so many should be retained when they should be in the scrap yard. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider this decision.

7.15 p.m.

I am doubtful about the new Clause and about the value of grants and subsidies of any kind. In their place, I would


rather have fair prices achieved by sensible import control. But so long as we have grants, it is nonsense not to include tractors and combines——

Mr. John Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman has enunciated an extraordinary new policy. Is he saying that, if import levies are introduced, he would do away with production grants entirely?

Mr. Body: That has never been proposed as part of Conservative policy. Surely the hon. Gentleman has attended enough agricultural debates to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has said again and again that production grants will be retained by the Conservative Party. What I am saying as a back bencher, without the blessing which my right hon. Friend might confer on me, is that I would rather have a sensible system of import control. Then we could do away with all subsidies, in whatever form. But that is a personal opinion.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: The new Clause, for all its obscurity—it is very complex—is clearly about capital. As I said in Committee, capital is the life blood of this or any other industry in our capitalist society, so this is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. It is intended to improve efficiency and cut bureaucracy and, I assume, make life easier for farmers and civil servants. It is difficult to discuss this in detail, since we do not know the exact provisions of the Statutory Instrument, but I do not see how a general levelling-off in grants will improve efficiency. It will, I suppose, be easier if there is only one form to take out of the drawer, but it is bound to be a complex piece of paper, containing an enormous number of questions. It may turn out to be more complicated than some of the present forms.
As to the rate of repayment in this computerised age, since each repayment will be of a different size, I cannot see how one level will help. My hon. Friends have spoken of the virtues of the old investment allowances. As a practising farmer I have sorely missed them. I used to find it a profitable operation to change my tractors annually—an operation that not only benefited me, but my industrial neighbours in Coventry, Birmingham and

in Dagenham and put on to the market good second-hand machines. What has happened? As soon as the Government brought in grants we had to stop this because it did not pay us. I have had to go on with increasingly elderly machinery because it does not pay to change.
The question of the bureaucratic nature of agriculture has bothered the industry since just before the war. The Minister will recall answering a Question on the subject, tabled by me, about civil servants and farmers. In 1951, there were 6·8 farmers to every civil servant. At that time the Ministry of Food was included in the figures. By the time the Conservatives left office in 1964 we had reduced that figure to 16·7, a substantial improvement in a number of civil servants in relation to the number of farmers. Under this Government it has dropped again, to 15·4 a decline of 8 per cent. in five years. Presumably we will go back to having six or seven farmers with one civil servant to look after them.
Too much emphasis is placed on the fraudulent aspect and the policing of these capital grants. Every grant is designed so that no one can get away with a penny, but if it costs £1 to safeguard that penny it seems an unwise philosophy. A selective checking, as is done in certain cases, could perhaps be expanded. The question of policing investment grants was much simpler. We rendered our annual accounts and agreed our allowance with the inspector of taxes. The right way to help capital investment in agriculture is through investment allowances administered through the Revenue Department. I know that there is a deficiency in that the initial cash payment is not made but the simplicity and streamlined efficiency would more than offset that disadvantage.
One other matter so far not raised is that of Statutory Instruments. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) feels strongly about this. To produce a Clause on such an important matter resting solely on a Statutory Instrument which cannot be amended on the Floor of the House is a bad trend. While I am aware that previous Governments have been guilty of this, that does not mean that the proposal should not be criticized. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr.


Hazell) quoted a N.F.U. circular on this Clause. It is worth quoting two lines from one I have received which says:
Members should be under no illusions as to the extent of the industry's reaction to the abolition of capital grants on tractors and combines. It is both widespread and intense.
I am sure that all of us in the industry are acutely aware of the feeling on this matter.
The importance of capital grants has been stressed by the Minister in the Price Review. He has given about a quarter of the Price Review in these grants and is aware of the importance to the industry of capital investment. What he has not told us is where we are to find the other two-thirds, or whatever. Like my Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), I will find at the end of the tax year that my costs will barely be recoverable in the increased production payments that I will receive under the Price Review.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will resist the temptation to drift into talking about the form of the Price Review.

Mr. Wiggin: You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that there is a large element of capital grant in the Price Review and that this is a capital grant Clause. I was trying to relate my remarks to this fact. Many of my hon. Friends mentioned the difficulties of the small farmers, but I do not see why we should not have mentioned the interests of some of the larger farmers. There is a common misapprehension about the difference between a large farmer and a small farmer. This is often a question of the size of his business. I should be reluctant to join with one or two of my hon. Friends in necessarily making one rule for "A" and another for "X" according to his size. It is not always easy to decide what this limitation should be. "Man days" have been used and this is a pretty rough and ready method. This Clause is better out of the Bill and I hope that we will have a chance to vote against it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The context in which the Government are seeking to introduce a Clause which was rejected in Committee is a clear, rather than hypo-

thetical, one. The starting point for that context must be the report called "The Task Ahead" issued in June 1968 by the Economic Development Council, which is a subsidiary of N.E.D.C. The House will recollect that it assessed a need for capital injection to meet the targets laid down at £230 million, plus an extra sum for physical inputs—fertilisers, seeds, sprays, etc.—into the industry, which would build up to an extra £110 million by the fifth year, 1972–73.
We are now two-fifths of the way along that path. It is only fair to say that the Government accepted a lower target than that recommended. If we pro-rate down the capital requirements of £230 million recommended by the E.D.C. to the figure of £160 million import substitution figure accepted by the Government, it means that the industry need £165 million additional capital and an additional £80 million to meet the further income costs, chargeable on income account, to reach the target accepted by the Government in their selective expansion programme. We must test this new Clause, which is exclusively to do with farm capital grants, to see whether it is adequate to meet those targets set by the Government.
Since the Price Review last Thursday the Economic Committee of N.E.D.C., dealing with agriculture, has again reported. A paragraph of critical importance in the report appears on page 11, reference 4.06. It is of material importance in judging whether or not the new Clause meets the requirement. It says:
Nevertheless, the question of confidence—whether among farmers and growers there is sufficient confidence in the future prosperity of their industry to justify the scale of investment required—remains crucial. Since the E.D.C. first reported on this problem in June, 1968, there have been some useful developments towards achieving greater stability in in market prices. At the same time, the situation has deteriorated in two important respects. First, the rise in interest rates has been so steep that many worthwhile investment proposals must be held in abeyance. Secondly, the fall in net farm income in 1968–69 has reduced the ability of many farmers to provide for direct investment from cash flow. These are matters which justify the closest attention in the coming months.
One could not have a clearer indication from this body, appointed by the Government, of what the present needs are.
Interest rates and cash flows are identified as having, in effect, sabotaged the Government's selective expansion programme. Therefore, to substitute for the cash grants the provisions of the new Clause can only serve to aggravate this position, identified publicly as recently as last Thursday by the E.D.C. of "Neddy".
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept or reject the analysis of that committee? This is highly material, because, although he could fairly claim that he did not know that this assessment would he made when he put his case in Standing Committee, he cannot claim that he was unaware of the position. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has received this report. Although I indented for it at the Vote Office last Thursday, I had to telephone the Treasury to get a copy of it this morning, which means that it has been far from available to hon. Members.
This sets the critical context for judging the new Clause. The Minister should think again—in the light of this report, which is less than a week old—whether the capital needs of his Selective Expansion Programme can conceivably be met by reducing the cash flow available to the industry. This is the most important single point in this context.
I share the views that have been expressed recently on the subject of dealing with the whole matter by way of Statutory Instrument, remembering that that procedure does not allow for amendments to be made. The Minister will lay a large number of regulations, many of them drafted with atrocious incompetence because it is not the most competent draftsmen who are given the task of drafting Statutory Instruments which, as I say, cannot be amended.
The more skilful ones are given the task of drafting clauses such as this new Clause, which can be amended and which must, therefore, be defended in detail on the Floor of the House. The House will have no opportunity to amend these Statutory Instruments and it is therefore important——

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he has made a grave charge against parliamentary draftsmen, whose reputation is of the

highest order; and I refer to those who draft Bills, Clauses, and Regulations?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have not made any aspersion. The Minister may find that I have put forward a plausible proposition, which is that among any group of draftsmen there will be the more skilful and less skilful and the more experienced and less experienced. I do not criticise the Government for using the more experienced and skilful ones to draft matters which are more vulnerable on the Floor of the House. I was not being critical but merely observing a fact.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Mr. Cledwyn Hughes indicated dissent.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When the drafting of Statutory Instruments is subject to criticism in debate, Ministers, whichever party they represent—this is not peculiar to a Labour Government—say that they cannot be amended, and that it is up to the House to either accept or reject them. Crocodile tears are shed about the inability to amend them, and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Again, I must remind the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) will confirm this—that the parliamentary draftsmen as a whole serve Government Departments. There is no selection of individual parliamentary draftsmen for this work. As a body, they are without rival in their work in the world and they provide the country with a good service.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Nobody is doubting that, but time and again in Standing Committee Ministers present what they call "drafting Amendments" because in the Bills which they present—presumably they read them before presenting them—there are drafting errors which must be corrected. I am not suggesting that these errors are intentional, but they happen. It is highly improbable that there should be multitudinous errors of drafting in legislation which is subject to amendment by the House, while Statutory Instruments should be innocent of this defect.

Mr. Joplin: An apt example of what my hon. Friend is saying is the 1967 Act, which will be under discussion when we come to new Clause No. 2. There were about 20 errors in that Measure—notably


in Sections 26 and 27—which are having to be put right by this Bill.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which serves to emphasise the point I am making.
It is a critical decision for this House to make, in every case, whether the disbursement of large sums of public money shall be under the control of the House. By giving Ministers vaporous powers which are not subject to the effective and detailed control of the House, we are allowing to pass out of our hands, and into the realm of good intention, the whole question of how large sums of public money shall be spent.
It is worse than that. It is not only the question of how prudently the money is spent, but whether or not it is spent in such a way that it interferes with the rights of other citizens. It has been pointed out that there is no planning control of capital building programmes for which payments could be made under the new Clause. Later I will endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to point out that this money could be spent in such a way that hideous inconvenience and lack of amenity could be caused to other citizens; for example, when extremely intensive production units are erected in what is, in effect, the middle of a town.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that for all farm buildings one should have to apply for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Acts?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No. I would not put it as broadly as that. Certain classes of building used in association with poultry and pigs, which are the real niggers in the woodpile, should be subject to the possibility of objection, where public money is being spent. If the Minister gets these powers, he should pay considerable attention to this, because it is a double injury for a taxpayer to have to pay for the erection of a building which makes the habitation of his own house unendurable. Since we shall have no opportunity to move Amendments to the Statutory Instruments under which this can be brought about, it is especially necessary to debate these implications now before the new Clause passes into law.
A further point, which superficially may not seem of great importance, is the rule that the lowest tender must be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) spoke about work being carried out which was subsequently found not to be up to an acceptable standard. Although the rule that the lowest tender must be accepted appears to be protecting the public purse, it can militate against the public purse if it results in jerry-building. Discretion should be granted to the officer of the N.A.A.S. or of the Agricultural Land Service to exclude a tender from consideration if he is satisfied that the contractor concerned has not consistently produced work of an adequate standard. A certain amount of flexibility should be allowed so as not to defeat the purpose of the rule.
We do not know how the Minister will use the powers which he is seeking in new Clause 1, and this is why the debate has been so much longer than expected. This is the only opportunity that the House will have to make observations about the manner in which the Minister should or should not exercise powers granted under the Clause, which is a facet of the question whether or not we should give him the enabling powers. So much is left to assurances by the Minister in winding up, which the House can never subsequently enforce and the present Minister may not even be the Minister who has to implement those assurances. That is why so many of us have substantial reservations about the new Clause, and regard as prudent and wise the action of the Standing Committee in throwing it out.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe: Like the National Farmers Union, I welcome the general provisions of the new Clause. The Minister's reasons were stated in Committee on 16th December in column 391. He explained that when he came to the Department he realised that these schemes were excessively complicated, as hon. Members who have had to consult farmers about the working of capital grants and other schemes know only too well. We welcome any attempt to simplify the administrative problems.
May I ask the Minister about his calculations of the expenditure of public money? It would be wrong for the


industry to neglect the interests of the taxpayer. Agriculture is, inevitably, constantly under fire from the taxpayer and his representatives, and can go forward as a public service and as a private industry only if it retains the support and sympathy of the taxpayer.
Will the Minister say how the changes in the schemes mentioned in the new Clause will affect the productivity of labour, particularly as between small and large farms? Does he believe that the increase in output per man will be greater on small farms than on large farms? How will the schemes affect the output per acre, and the return per £? The small farmer finds access to capital more difficult than the large farmer.
It might be that productivity, labour output per acre and return on capital, from the point of view of national interest and the taxpayer, would be better if the money were concentrated in the hands of the large farmer. In arguing for the small farmer, if that were so, even then there might be a social price which some of us might wish to pay.
Fears have been expressed that the money will end up in the hands of the larger farmers. What estimate has the Minister made of the percentage of the total money referred to in the new Clause which will go to the smaller holdings, those, for example, of under 50 acres, and what percentage will go to the larger holdings? In 1963, 4 per cent. of all holdings obtained 25 per cent. of all deficiency payments. None of us would want that same pattern to emerge with capital grants.
The Minister said in Committee that the scheme would be useful to small farmers, and:
A number of them for the first time will be able to obtain grant assistance in respect of investment in more intensive methods of production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 11th December, 1969; c. 346.]
Will the Minister amplify this point? I am thinking particularly of some of the problems with the greater intensification of farms that arise in marketing the product. The scheme, for example, may give some of the money towards the intensification of milk production. I am constantly told by farmers in my constituency that N.A.A.S. advisers tell them exactly how to increase their output of milk by increasing the number of

cows, and so on. But, unless we are prepared to ensure that farmers can take a higher proportion of the home market in manufactured milk, there is no point in increasing the output of either the small or the large farmer.
According to the Minister, grants could still be paid for tractors and combine harvesters, but he has no intention of paying them under the schemes mentioned in the new Clause. I entirely accept that tractor and combine harvester investment grants may not be the most productive investment. The Minister set out his reasons for believing this in Committee. He first suggested that there were better ways of using this money. His basic argument was as follows:
we concluded that their contribution to the improvement of productivity in the industry was not commensurate with their cost.
That may well be the case, but the House is entitled to further details as to how he came to that conclusion. The Minister then went on with a rather odd argument:
It is paid in respect of machines which are necessary to the industry and which are, therefore, likely to be purchased in any event.
If investment grants are not to be paid for anything that would have been purchased in any case, this knocks on the head all industrial incentive schemes of any kind because it would not be sensible to pay an investment grant for luxury goods and it would be likely to cause difficulty if the Minister's definition was too clearly defined.
Then the Minister went on to say:
… the vast majority of farmers will be able to claim compensatory tax allowances".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 11th December, 1969; c. 344.–5.]
I thought that an odd argument coming from a Minister—a Minister who, I believe, supports in principle the idea of investment grants as opposed to investment tax allowances. I was somewhat worried by the argument. It could apply to the whole range of investment grants and particularly investment grants in development areas.
On the problem of tenant farmers, the N.F.U. circular sent out on 20th March expresses a concern about the tenant farmer because the tractor and combined harvester grants were the only part of the capital grant structure from which the tenant farmer could benefit. I should


be grateful if the Minister could answer this point and say how he sees the tenant farmers getting anything at all out of this Clause.
As to enabling powers in general, I do not like them any more than many of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken against them on this side of the House. However, they give flexibility, and it would be wrong to fix on to the industry at this moment in time specific ways of giving capital grants which we would require a massive Act of Parliament to change. Therefore, on the whole I am prepared to tolerate a degree of enabling powers introduced by this Clause in the interests of greater flexibility for the future of the industry.
I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up a point on subsection (4) of the Clause. If the money has been paid to a contractor and the work is then badly done, who will pay the money back? Presumably the farmer must pay it back; but does he also have to incur the legal costs of getting the money back from the contractor? I presume that this is so; but there could be additional cost which has to be borne by him. Will the farmer have to pay back the sum before the contractor pays the money back to him? In that case he may well have obtained a grant and paid the contractor for the work, or he may have paid insalments on the work and he may have paid the money and then found the work to be unsatisfactory.
To put the boot on the other foot, it is not always the farmer who may be in difficulty in these matters, but a number of small contractors who supply goods might also be in difficulties where a grant has not been paid and the Ministry says that the work is bad. There will inevitably be a period of argument between the Ministry and the farmer about whether the grant will be paid.
I had a recent case involving a drainage matter, in which the farmer subsequently said that the work was not satisfactory, and there was long delay in paying the grant. The contractor wanted the Ministry representatives to produce evidence that they had approved the scheme. The Ministry was not prepared to come forward and produce that evidence.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is even worse when everything has been settled up, when the grant has been paid, the contractor has been paid, and then, after two or three months, the work is found to be bad and one has no comeback at all.

Mr. Pardoe: One has the normal come-back in the courts. One has protection in that way. I do not entirely accept the suggestion that somehow the Ministry inspectors should be god-like in these matters. Inevitably they will make mistakes in the quality of work, and there will be disasters as a result.
I particularly welcome the appeal procedure. Subsection (4) says that a person who has his grant revoked or has to pay it back will be given an opportunity to appear before a person appointed for the purpose by the appropriate Minister. Could the Minister say whether in such a case the individual will be able to be represented? Some small farmers, and, indeed, people in all walks of life, are not good at putting across their points I am particularly wondering whether M.P.s will be able to appear before that person to present the case and whether such an appellant could have a legal representative.
I have already welcomed the Clause. In closing, I would merely ask the Minister to tell the House what will happen if the Clause is not passed by the House tonight. Will any grant be payable at all?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: With permission, I should like to reply to the debate. We have had a long discussion on the new Clause. This is as it should be since we are dealing with one of the most important and central issues of the Bill.
Listening to some hon. Members, one would think that this was an infamous Clause. In fact, as we were reminded by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), the broad concept of the Clause has been generally welcomed, including, as the hon. Gentleman said, a welcome by the N.F.U. itself. It is against that background that we should look at some of the criticisms which have been made and some of the detailed points.
There have been a large number of points. In fact, I do not remember taking part in a debate on Report when so many issues have been raised and so many questions included in every speech. However, I will do my best.
I start with the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who raised a number of points. I feel that his criticism of me was rather unfair when he said that I had said nothing about the proposals. We were reminded, again by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North—who was not in the Committee but who must have some Welsh blood in him somewhere since he has been so helpful this evening—that on 16th December, in Standing Committee upstairs, I went into this matter in the greatest detail.
I took a great deal of time in the Committee in making my speech. Clearly, in spite of the persuasive nature of my speech and the clarity with which I presented my argument and the detail into which I went, it is unfortunately true that I was unable to persuade all the members of the Opposition. There was then what has been called a snap decision. I do not make any charge. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) must not be too sensitive. I make no charge of trickery against him, but I would agree with him when he said that everything worked according to plan.
We have heard a great deal about the tractor situation. We gave this matter an enormous amount of thought before we came to our conclusion. What we are saying is that we want the money to go where we think it would be used in the best interests of an efficient industry. The tractor grant has had a good run, and there is hardly a farm in the country which has not a tractor. Nevertheless, I have retained the powers here, and we must look at them again as we go on. In the unlikely event of the right hon. Gentleman succeeding me, the powers would be there if he wanted to look at them again. I take it that the force with which he has presented his arguments is a promise to do this if, unhappily for the country, the party opposite attains office in the next 12 months or so.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about assistance for the livestock producer. Again, we have had a good deal of discussion about the brought-in feed

rule. I will not go into it in detail, but it has been in operation for some years under existing schemes. It was a desirable test in a scheme based on the land, and in the conditions in which it was first applied it was the proper thing to do. Equally, it has become apparent over the last two or three years that it is less fitted to the modern concept of the farm business. We have come to recognise that there is no merit in an objective of self-sufficiency for individual farms as an end in itself.
The present brought-in feed rule discriminates against livestock producers, and livestock and livestock products represent over two-thirds of our farm ales. In addition, the production of livestock is important to our forward programme. Such a rule hits hardest at those producers who can grow little or none of the feed which they require for their stock. But such producers now have a significant share of the production of some products, and many of them have shown that they can make an efficient use of resources and could make a major contribution to the expansion of production of the livestock, particularly pigs, that we need.
I recognise the need for a safety net against the possibility that a few very large producers might make excessive and disproportionate demands on the grant funds. We shall continue to apply under a Farm Capital Grant Scheme the ceiling on grant going to any single farming unit which was introduced concurrently with the recent increase in the rate of the agricultural investment grant on buildings and fixed equipment.
I take the point that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made when he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Torrington. It is a valid and important point which I shall certainly bear in mind. If I am advised that it is necessary to take any additional powers to ensure that no one evades the scheme or bursts through the ceiling by manipulating it in some undesirable way, obviously we shall have to do something about it.
Then the right hon. Member for Grantham asked about the increase of the 10 percentage points in relation to the new unified scheme. This increase applies to the main existing grants imme-


diately. It will also apply to the new unified grant scheme which will replace existing grants, so that the basic rate will be 40 per cent. until 18th March 1972, and the higher rate for drainage and so on will be increased as I have indicated.
Then the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the grants for the establishment of an agricultural business. The Clause merely allows us, firstly, to provide for grants on remodelling works as a consequence of approved amalgamations, and, secondly, to assist the investment by landlords between tenancies.
The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the replacement of funds going to tractor and harvester grants. We have had a long argument about this, and I do not think that it is necessary to deploy all the arguments which we took into account. We had to make a judgment on it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that our judgment was wrong. We still adhere to it. We think that it is right and that in the long term, the industry will benefit more from the new method of distributing the available money.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked for details of the scheme, and he has indicated to me that, because of another appointment, he is unable to be here for my reply. I covered this in my speech, but perhaps I might say that, with the 10 per cent. increase, rates under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme will be for buildings, equipment and machinery 40 per cent.; for water supply 40 per cent.; for field drainage 60 per cent.; for hill land improvement 60 per cent.; for remodelling works for amalgamations 60 per cent.; and for drainage in hills 70 per cent. I think that the right hon. Member for Grantham asked the same question, and I am glad to be able to give that information.
A point was made by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on administrative savings. He was rather critical. However, as he almost invariably does, he made my point for me by referring to the complexity of the present paper work. Certainly we will do our best to make the new form as simple as possible. I am sorry that I am not able to circulate it to hon. Members this

evening, but I have not yet had the authority of the House to produce it. I have to be careful of the hon. Member for Tiverton in these matters. In due course and as soon as possible we shall produce a unified capital grants form as short, as precise and as clear as possible. One of the objects of this exercise is to simplify the capital grants.
Then there was the other question raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland about the reason for the increase in the rate of capital grants. The increase is intended to give farmers further help and encouragement in carrying out the investment needed for expansion and increased productivity. The hon. Gentleman produced some calculations of his own about the rate of investment. His figures contain some serious omissions, and I will give the facts. I cast no aspersions upon his intention, but I am afraid that his calculations are open to question.
The total investment covered by the main capital grants is now running at about £90 million a year. With these new incentives, the level will increase. It is true that there has been some decline, not in the level of expenditure but in the number of applications for approval, for some but not all of the capital grants. But with the increased rates of grant, the reduction in interest rates and the increased incomes that farmers will be able to earn at the new levels of guaranteed prices, I am confident that the number of applications will rise substantially.
Again, this is a matter of judgment. We shall have to wait and see. This is what I am advised and believe. It is what my regional controllers, who are in touch with the various regions, have advised me.

Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that my figures were those of the farm improvement scheme. I suggested that last year's expenditure in the White Paper of £14·9 million at 30 per cent. grant represented £50 million worth of work, whereas the estimate for next year is £15½ million of expenditure at 40 per cent. grant, and that implies £39 million worth of work. In other words, according to the right hon. Gentleman's figures, there is likely to be a drop in capital expenditure qualifying for the farm improvement scheme.

Mr. Hughes: There is a serious misunderstanding here. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to discuss it with me. Alternatively, I could deal with it in a letter to him. It is largely a Committee point but it is a point made indirectly by the right hon. Member for Grantham when he criticises the increase of 10 per cent. in the capital grants as an instrument in the award.
I was asked what the award would be in conventional terms in one year. It is difficult to quantify. I do not want to go into it, because I shall rapidly get out of order. My advice is that the take-up over two years of capital grants with the 10 per cent. increase will amount to at least £20 million. I do not want to try to quantify it in terms of one year. It would be unfair to do so, and I should be guilty of the sin with which the right hon. Gentleman does not charge me but of which he says that other people think I am guilty. Therefore, I want to avoid that.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. We therefore deduct £21 million from the figure to give the approximate figure which he sought to give. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He knows that if he puts a figure like this into a statement it is bound to attract the attention of the Press. Therefore, he will realise why it has figured so prominently in Press comments.

Mr. Hughes: I would not accept that I mention figures with the object of attracting Press comment, as do some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite from time to time. I qualified my words to make clear that we were talking about a total allocation of resources. As the right hon. Gentleman clearly said, I referred more than once to the two-year period. I hope that I have clarified the matter beyond peradventure in what I have now said.
I turn now to the point about work being badly done, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who has left us, and raised again by the hon. Member for Torrington. I believe that it was also raised by another hon. Gentleman. We are proposing to reduce the extent to which a technical soundness test is applied compared with existing

schemes. But the taxpayer must be protected against grant-aiding grossly bad work. We are relaxing the provisions, so far as we can to help the farmer, but we must apply some test. Otherwise, we should be neglecting our duty and would be rapidly called before the Public Accounts Committee of this honourable House.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) talked about amenity. This is a matter of concern to all. We already take amenity aspects into account when considering grant applications for approval. This is one of the points on which we advise farmers. Indeed, it is part of my duty to ensure that this is done.
The hon. Member for Tiverton raised a point about planning control. I remind the House that this is primarily a matter for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He and I have been talking about this problem. There is a good deal of room for discussion on how far agricultural buildings need to be subject to planning control. It is an untidy sector of planning, and it needs careful consideration. We have been discussing this matter and we have had discussions with some of the interested organisations. I give hon. Gentlemen opposite the assurance that as our discussions proceed we shall bear in mind what they have said.
The cry of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North was: where will the money go? We estimate that we shall receive about 80,000 applications a year under the new scheme. As there are about 200,000 full-time farmers, it is clear that a substantial proportion of them will benefit from the new grant each year. Indeed, many provisions of the new scheme, such as the ending of the brought-in feed rule, which has prevented many small farmers from obtaining grants towards the cost of buildings for extra livestock, will be of particular help.
The new Clause has been criticised for a variety of reasons, but it has not been criticised in principle. I think that all hon. Members want to lessen the paper work that farmers have to do and want to make the capital grant schemes simpler.
If I may take the House into my confidence, I was concerned, when I began


thinking about this possibility, to ensure that if we were able to produce a scheme of this kind it should not diminish the amount available to farmers from capital grants. Therefore, I assure the House that this will not be the case.
There has been criticism about tractors. I recognise the force and sincerity with which this criticism has been put by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But it is a matter of judgment, so we must agree to disagree on this matter. However, the power is in the Bill if it is necessary to use it.

8.15 p.m.

The Clause will enable us to take a substantial step forward in the administration of agricultural grants. It will give farmers and landowners greater freedom of choice to carry out the investments which they believe will be best for their businesses or estates. In this way it will contribute to the modernisation of the industry, to which we are all dedicated. It will also make possible a streamlining of the legislative procedures, as we shall be able to have a single Statutory Instrument covering what have been 11 separate grant schemes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Tiverton will be glad of that information, and will no doubt sleep easier tonight.

This measure of streamlining, simplification and modernisation has received a general welcome from a wide spectrum of opinion, ranging from the farmers unions to the Economist. Who could hope for a wider spectrum than that?

It is true that the unions expressed some reservations, but in the opening words of their memorandum to Members of Parliament on Part II they gave the provisions a clear welcome, because they said—at the end of my speech I hope I am entitled to quote this—
The Union welcomes Part II to the extent to which it foreshadows a simplification of the now complex structure of capital grants and saves the time of both farmers and officials in handling schemes.

One would think from many of the comments of the Opposition that we were proposing a retrograde step. On the contrary, it is a forward-looking Measure which has been generally recognised and welcomed as such. I am confident that the future will support this view. If and when in years to come the Opposition take office, I do not believe that they will change one jot or tittle of it.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 152.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[8.17 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Concannon, J. D.
Gardner, Tony


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E.


Allen, Scholefield
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ginsburg, David


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam
Golding, John


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gregory, Arnold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Baxter, William
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bence, Cyril
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dewar, Donald
Hamling, William


Bessell, Peter
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hannan, William


Bidwell, Sydney
Dickens, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bishop, E. S.
Dobson, Ray
Haseldine, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hazell, Bert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Henig, Stanley


Boston, Terence
Eadie, Alex
Hilton, W. S.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hobden, Dennis


Brooks, Edwin
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ellis, John
Hopson, Emlyn


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
English, Michael
Horner, John


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ennals, David
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Howie, W.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Faulds, Andrew
Huckfield, Leslie


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Carmichael, Neil
Finch, Harold
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hunter, Adam


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hynd, John


Coe, Denis
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Coleman, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)




Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rose, Paul


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Molloy, William
Rowlands, E.


Judd, Frank
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)
Ryan, John


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Lawson, George
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Leadbitter, Ted
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton, N.E.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Murray, Albert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Lee, John (Reading)
Neal, Harold
Slater, Joseph


Lestor, Miss Joan
Newens, Stan
Small, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Snow, Julian


Lomas, Kenneth
Norwood, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Loughlin, Charles
Oakes, Gordon
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Lubbock, Eric
O'Halloran, Michael
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oram, Bert
Taverne, Dick


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


McBride, Neil
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Tinn, James


McCann, John
Palmer, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Macdonald, A. H.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McElhone, Frank
Pardoe, John
Wallace, George


McGuire, Michael
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wellbeloved, James


>Mackie, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mackintosh, John P.
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Maclennan, Robert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McNamara, J. Kevin
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mapp, Charles
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Marquand, David
Rankin, John
Winnick, David


Maxwell, Robert
Rees, Merlyn
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mendelson, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy



Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Millan, Bruce
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Ernesn Armstrong and


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roebuck, Roy
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Errington, Sir Eric
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley


Balniel, Lord
Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bitten, John
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper


Brewis, John
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael



Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Carlisle, Mark
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, J. E. B.
Ridsdale, Julian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Henry
Hordern, Peter
Royle, Anthony


Corfield, F. V.
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
St. John-Stevan, Norman


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hunt, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Claris
Sharples, Richard


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Sinclair, Sir George


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dance, James
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dean, Paul
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Speed, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kimball, Marcus
Stodart, Anthony


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eden, Sir John
King, Tom
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)







Temple, John M.
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
Worsley, Marcus


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Dame Irene
Wright, Esmond


Tilney, John
Welis, John (Maidstone)
Wylie, N. R.


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Younger, Hn. George


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry



Vickers, Dame Joan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Waddington, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Walters, Dennis

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

AMENDMENTS AS TO GRANTS IN CONNECTION WITH ALTERATIONS OF FARM STRUCTURE

(1) Part II of the Agriculture Act 1967 (which relates to grants in connection with alterations in farm structure) shall have effect with the amendments specified in the subsequent provisions of this section.

(2) In section 26—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words preceding paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the words "The appropriate Minister may in accordance with a scheme approve, and (subject to section 47 of the Agriculture Act 1970) make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards expenditure incurred in connection with the carrying out of—"; and in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) the word "of"' in the first place where it occurs in each of those paragraphs shall be omitted;
(ii) in paragraph (a) (which relates to the carrying out of transactions for securing that agricultural land which is an uncommercial unit, but which together with some other agricultural land could form an intermediate unit or commercial unit, shall be owned and occupied with that other land), after the word "is" there shall be inserted the words "or forms part of";
(iii) for the words "improvements and works which will be carried out" there shall be substituted the words "works and facilities which will be carried out or provided";

(b) in subsection (3) as amended by subsection (6) of section (Farm capital grants) of this Act (which defines the expenditure towards which a grant may be made under section 26 in connection with an amalgamation or boundary adjustment) for the words from "shall be" onwards there shall be substituted the words "shall be any costs of the amalgamation or boundary adjustment of any description specified in the scheme";

(c) in subsection (4) as amended by subsection (6) of section (Farm capital grants) of this Act (which specifies certain matters for which different provision may be made by a scheme under section 26) for the words from "amalgamations" onwards there shall be sustituted the words "different circumstances";

(d) in subsection (5) (which relates to the amount of a grant under that section) for the words from "shall be" onwards there shall be substituted the words "shall be determined in such manner as may be provided for by or under the scheme";

(e) for subsection (6) which relates to the matters by reference to which grant is to be payable under that section, there shall be substituted the following:—

"(6) A scheme under this section shall provide for grant in respect of such of any expenditure such as is mentioned in subsection (3) above as is approved for the purposes of grant by the appropriate Minister in connection with an amalgamation or boundary adjustment approved by that Minister in pursuance of the scheme, and any such approval—

(a) may be given either before or, in any case where the appropriate Minister thinks fit, after the expenditure has been incurred or the amalgamation or boundary adjustment has been carried out;
(b) may be given subject to such conditions as the appropriate Minister may specify, and in particular subject to any condition as to the time within which the amalgamation or boundary adjustment is to be carried out or as to the carrying out or provision within a specified period of specified works or facilities appearing to the appropriate Minister to be necessary as a consequence of the amalgamation or boundary adjustment;
(c) may be varied or withdrawn by the appropriate Minister with the written consent of the person on whose application the approval was given;

and the appropriate Minister may, if he thinks fit, for the purposes of a claim for grant under section (Farm capital grants) of the Agriculture Act 1970 issue a certificate with respect to any work or facility that he considers it to be necessary or desirable as a consequence of an amalgamation, or to be necessary as a consequence of a boundary adjustment, approved by that Minister in pursuance of the scheme";

(f) in subsection (7) (which provides that after certain payments the provisions of Schedule 3 shall apply) for the word "or" in the first place where it occurs there shall be substituted the words "any grant under section (Farm capital grants) of the Agriculture Act 1970 in respect of any work or facility certified under subsection (6) above or any grant under";

(g) in subsection (7)(a) (which provides that the proposals for an amalgamation shall


not be approved unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that certain persons have given their consent to the application of Schedule 3) the words "the proposals for" shall be omitted;

(h) in subsection (7)(b) for the word "proposals" there shall be substituted the word "amalgamation";

(i) for subsection (7)(c)(i) there shall he substituted the following:—

"(i) any such grant as aforesaid in respect of such expenditure as the appropriate Minister may certify as being expenditure related to the relevant unit, and";

(j) in subsection (8), after the word "section", there shall be inserted the words "or any such grant under section (Farm capital grants) of the Agriculture Act 1970 as is referred to in the last foregoing subsection" and for the word "proposals" there shall be substituted the words "boundary adjustment";

(k) in subsection (11), for the words "in consequence of the carrying out of proposals approved under this section" there shall be substituted the words "as a consequence of an amalgamation or boundary adjustment approved in pursuance of a scheme under this section or in consequence of the carrying out or provision of works or facilities certified under subsection (6) thereof".

(3) In section 27—

(a) in subsection (1)(a) (which relates to certain circumstances in which a grant under section 27 may be made) for the words from "amalgamation" onwards there shall be substituted the words "amalgamation approved in pursuance of a scheme under section 26 of this Act, or";
(b) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(5A) A scheme under this section may make provision, in a case where a person who has submitted an application for a grant under this section, and who has in prescribed circumstances either relinquished or become under an obligation to relinquish occupation of the uncommercial unit of agricultural land in question, subsequently dies before the application has been dealt with, for the application to be proceeded with after the death and for grants under this section of such respective amounts as may be determined by or under the scheme to be payable either—

(a) by way of annuity—

(i) in respect of any period after the relinquishment and before the death, for the benetfi of the deceased's estate; and
(ii) in respect of any period falling after both the relinquishment and the death, to any person who was both at the date of the death and at the time when the application was made the spouse of the deceased; or

(b) by way of a lump sum payment for the benefit of the deceased's estate.".

(4) In section 28(1) (which relates to loans to assist amalgamations and boundary adjustments)—

(a) for the words from "incurred" to "applies" there shall be substituted the words "incurred in connection with an amalgamation or boundary adjustment approved by the appropriate Minister in pursuance of a scheme under section 26 of this Act";
(b) in paragraph (a), after the word "section", there shall be inserted the words "or incurred in the carrying out or provision of works or facilties certified under subsection (6) thereof".

(5) In section 35(b) (which provides that a scheme under section 26 or 27 may authorise the making of different grants in different circumstances) for the word "may" there shall be substituted the words "without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (4) of the said section 26 as to schemes under that section, may, in the case of a scheme under the said section 27".

(6) Section 37 (which relates to recovery of grant) shall apply in relation to the approval of an amalgamation or boundary adjustment in pursuance of a scheme under section 26 as amended by this Act and to that amalgamation or boundary adjustment as it applies in relation to the approval of proposals under that section as originally enacted or, as the case may be, to those proposals.

(7) Section 38 (which relates to the recovery of possession of farmhouses made redundant by amalgamation) or, as the case may require, Case 13 in Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 (which replaces the provisions of the said section 38 for England and Wales) shall apply in relation to an amalgamation approved in pursuance of a scheme under section 26 as amended by this Act as it applies in relation to proposals for amalgamation approved for the purposes of a scheme under that section as originally enacted and, as so applied, shall have effect as if for references therein to the time when the proposals were submitted or the date on which the proposals were approved there were substituted a reference to the time when the application for approval of the amalgamation was made or, as the case may be, the date on which the amalgamation was approved.

(8) Subject to the provisions of any order under subsection (7) of section (Farm capital grants) of this Act, the provisions of this section shall have effect as respects any period beginning on or after the date appointed under subsection (6) of the said section (Farm capital grants); but the appropriate Minister for the purposes of section 26 may by order made by statutory instrument provide for any provision of this section to come into force from such earlier date as may be specified in the order; and the provisions of section 26, as amended by this section and the said subsection (6), are set out in Schedule (s. 26 of Agriculture Act 1967 as amended) thereto.—[Mr. Mackie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

>Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this new Clause, the House


will also be discussing Amendment (d), to leave out subsection (2)(b), and Amendment (e), to insert at the end of subsection (2)(b):
and the scheme may provide that any proposal for grant towards such expenditure shall not be eligible for approval unless it is submitted to the appropriate Minister before the end of two years beginning with the day after the completion of that transaction";
and Government Amendments Nos. 18 and 55.

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause is essentially the same as the old Clause 32, which was omitted from the Bill in Committee because it lost a good deal of its meaning without the old Clause 29. On Second Reading, there was a general welcome for the proposed amendments to the farm structure provisions, so I am glad to propose the restoration of this Clause, now that the provisions of the old Clause 29 have also been restored.
The purpose of the Clause is twofold. First, it corrects some defects in the existing legislation and, second, it is intended to pay grant on remodelling works resulting from an amalgamation or boundary adjustment under the proposed farm capital grants scheme. So we are amending the farm structure provision to permit this. This will be more convenient for the farmer and will enable us to simplify administration.
During our brief discussion of the original Clause in Committee, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) commended to us the Amendments put down by him and his hon. Friends, and hoped that I would manage to incorporate some of them at this stage. I have looked at this very carefully and I have revised the wording of paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of the Clause to clarify them. I hope that the change has also achieved the objects of some of the Amendments put down by hon. Members opposite. Perhaps hon. Members might find it helpful if I comment in some detail on the provisions we have amended in order to try to meet them.
Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) removes from subsection (3) of Section 26 of the Agriculture Act, 1967, the list of incidental costs—these are such items as legal expenses, surveyors' fees and stamp duty

—and substitutes for it a power to specify in a scheme what incidental costs are eligible for grant. The remainder of subsection (3) of Section 26, which deals with works and improvements eligible for grant, will be removed by a repeal in Schedule 4 of the Bill which I shall be moving later as Amendment No. 56.

8.30 p.m.

I know that there has been some concern about whether we intend to change the list of items eligible for amalgamation grant or the rate of grant. I, therefore, want to assure hon. Members that we intend to retain at least the present range of eligible items and the existing rate of grant, to which will be added, of course, the temporary 10 per cent. supplement which my right hon. Friend put on and which he announced in the Annual Review.

Paragraph (c) replaces a specific power in subsection (4) of Section 26 of the 1967 Act to make different provisions relating to intermediate units with a general power to make different provisions for different circumstances. This will enable us to make special provisions relating to, for example, statutory smallholdings as well as intermediate units. The amendments to the paragraph make it clear that the changes made by the paragraph apply to what is left of subsection (4) after part of it has been repealed by Amendment No. 56 to Schedule 4 to which I have already referred.

Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) has also been changed since Committee. This paragraph empowers us to deal with the situation where an applicant for out-goers' grant under Section 27 of the 1967 Act dies before his application has been dealt with but after relinquishing or becoming under an obligation to relinquish his unit for amalgamation. We discovered a defect in the provision as it appeared in the original Clause 32. To correct it and achieve our objective fully would have required a very complicated paragraph. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) sees this and he and I always try to avoid complicated paragraphs. We, therefore, decided it would be more appropriate, and in line with the present provision in subsection (5) of Section 27 of the 1967 Act, to put the detailed arrangements in the scheme. Our broad intention is, however, to pay the widow of an applicant for an annuity half the amount of the annuity


her husband would have been entitled to if he had lived. Where an applicant for a lump sum dies in similar circumstances, the lump sum for which he would have qualified if he has survived will be paid into his estate. Subsection (7) of this clause has also been amended. It now refers to Case 13 in Schedule 3 to the Rent Act, 1968, which has replaced Section 38 of the Agriculture Act, 1967, as regards England and Wales. I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West thanks that I am simplifying matters but, as he knows, if one alters something one must put in the full wording.

The remaining provisions of the Clause are the same as they were in the Bill during Committee stage. I hope that the changes which we have made—and my assurances about the range of eligible items which I know some hon. Members were worried about—and about the rate of grant will have removed any doubts about certain of the original provisions.

Mr. Jopling: We are most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining some of the alterations embodied in the new Clause. It is one of those fiendishly difficult Clauses which refer to previous provisions. It is difficult to follow in certain parts. I want to recall the speech which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made in our last debate, when he talked about the fallibility of parliamentary draftsmen, and in that context I can do no better than quote what my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said on Second Reading. Speaking of this Clause in its previous incarnation, he said:
Clause 32 is an admission, if ever there was one, of the bad drafting of a previous Measure. It is a horrible conglomeration of things that ought to have been put right in the 1967 Bill. We certainly tried hard then to help the Government put it right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1969; Vol. 790, c. 1213.]
But in certain circumstances, of course, the Government were beyond help. The result is this ghastly conglomerate known as new Clause 2, which embodies about 20 alterations to the Agriculture Act, 1967.
However, I do not want to labour through all the Amendments being made to the 1967 Act. I hope that the Government will tell us a little more about some of these Amendments, but one point I

must make is that here surely is an example of the parliamentary machine clogged up with legislation, with the consequence that Measures are pushed through and the resources of parliamentary draftsmen, the House and its Committees are seriously strained, the end result being that the Government have to come back two or three years later to have the thing put right.
I welcome the provisions of subsection (3) (b). This concerns the case where the applicant for a grant for giving up his holding dies after making the application and after he has given up the farm. This is a most humane provision which I very much welcome. It is something which perhaps we should have included earlier, but I think that none of us had thought of such a situation.
Amendment (d) is a probing Amendment. Section 26 of the 1967 Act is extremely specific about what qualifies for a grant for a farm amalgamation. We are told in that Section that qualifying costs include the costs of bringing about the amalgamation—for example, surveyors' and lawyers' fees, stamp duties, compensation for disturbance, and so forth; secondly, the costs of throwing together the units of land which apply to the amalgamation; and thirdly, the consequential costs of the amalgamation. I had intended to ask the Minister why it had been found necessary to throw all this overboard. It was specific in the Act and it seemed strange that these terms for qualification should go. The proposed definition in the new Clause is that it
… shall be any costs of the amalgamation or boundary adjustment of any description specified in the scheme.
Why has it been found necessary to change this? Since the scheme was so specific, will all the eligible work covered already continue to qualify? I understand from the hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's intention to retain the existing range for the time being. If that is so, it disposes quite reasonably of the point behind Amendment (d). It is really what we wanted to know.
Amendment (e) deals with a matter which I hope the Minister will look at very seriously. What we intend is to extend from one year to two the period after completion of a farm amalgamation or boundary adjustment during which


applications for grant can be submitted. This suggestion was put to us by the Country Landowners' Association, which regards it as a serious matter. It has certain cases, with which I shall not weary the House now, which show that one year is in practice rather too short a time. I hope that the Minister will have discussions with the association before the Bill goes to another place, so that he can be fully apprised of its reservants on the matter. If the period could be extended to two years, it would be extremely helpful in certain circumstances. It is that undertaking that we seek from him.
Turning to the final point which worries me, I do not think it would be in order for me to refer to the Amendment we have on the Paper with regard to the income tests which are applied on grants to individuals who relinquish tenancies of uneconomic holdings under the provisions of the 1967 Act, but in Clause 27(2)(c) of that Act there is this limit; and no farm family is allowed an income from sources other than farming of over £400 a year. This can be extremely hard on some farmers, and I hope that the Minister will look at it and see—[interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman said he would be out of order in discussing Amendment No. 4, and he was perfectly correct, but it seems that that is exactly what he is doing.

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend says I was foolish to alert you to the fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sunk my own boat but I have made my point and if the Minister would look at this—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is out of order in making it and the Minister would be equally out of order in replying to it.

Mr. Jopling: The final point I wish to raise is an extremely complicated one and it arises from Government Amendment No. 55. This is the Amendment which restores in a new Schedule the new Section 26 of the Agriculture Act, 1967, as it is amended by this new Clause. It is extremely helpful that we should have the proposed amended new Clause 26 in the Bill. In Section 26(3) of the Agricul-

ture Act, 1967, we find there is a complication, because the new Clause 2 which we are now debating intends to delete in line 3 of subsection (3) all the words after the words "shall be". That seems clear enough and Amendment No. 55, to which I have referred—the proposed new Clause 26—follows that exactly. Subsection (3) exactly follows the Amendment which is proposed in new Clause 2. Subsection (3), as amended by new Clause 2, would read, as it appears in Amendment No. 55:
The expenditure towards which a grant may be made under this section in connection with an amalgamation or boundary adjustment shall be any costs of the amalgamation or boundary adjustment of any description specified in the scheme.
That is all very well until we turn to Amendment No. 56 which we debated on a previous Amendment, relating to the repeals. Here we find a discrepancy, a situation which really does not follow. I would refer the Minister to line 31 of Amendment No. 56. One sees there that in Section 26(3) of the Act of 1967 all the words from:
'((b) in' to 'boundaries'
are repealed.
So far so good, but boundaries do not take us to the end of the story, for the repeal in Amendment No. 56 does not include subsection (3)(a).

8.45 p.m.

To simplify matters, it might help if I point out that new Clause 1 and the way in which, in Amendment No. 55, Section 26 of the 1967 Act is repeated make the matter tally. When we consider the rest of the repeals in Amendment No. 56, however, we see that it does not tally. Indeed, the effect of the repeals in Amendment No. 56 results in that provision of the 1967 Act being altered. It appears that there should be added, according to the repeals, to the words which I have read out the part of sub-paragraph (a) which begins
The cost of the amalgamation
while, at the end of that sub-paragraph, there should be added the words from the 1967 Act at the point I have described:
In this subsection and the following".

This is a basic discrepancy.

What I have said may sound gibberish, but I am sure that the Minister is aware


of what I have in mind. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman has followed my argument; but if he has not, I am sure that, when he reads my words in the OFFICIAL REPORT, everything will appear logical.

Mr. Hawkins: I will be brief because, unlike my hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), I do not understand the new Clause at all. It is highly complicated and I admit that I could not completely follow the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks, even if they were intelligible to the Minister.
My impression is that not a lot of use has been made of the amalgamation scheme. I hope I am wrong because it could be of great benefit. Could we be given a progress report? How many schemes have been approved and are things going according to plan? Is it expected that the alterations which we are making by the new Clause and the Amendments will speed up amalgamations?
At the outset of the scheme a few cases were brought to my attention, considerable delays having occurred. Perhaps that could be expected at the start of a new scheme. There did not seem to be the staff available for many months even to inspect farms on the spot. This put some people in difficulty because they had agreed to sell and had given up farming. Purchases could not be completed until the schemes had been approved.
Does it appear that the vast majority of schemes which have been approved have been between large men swallowing up small men or smallish men getting together to take over one man's farm to improve the holding? I have heard of too many cases where, for example, a man with, say, 500 acres has taken over another 40 acres and has got a grant for so doing. That cannot be the purpose of the scheme. I do not know what can be done to prevent it.
I very much welcome the parts of the Clause which enable a widow to draw this grant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland said, this is something which obviously we all forgot about. It is a very great improvement and I am glad that the Government have brought it into this Clause. I think the Minister

said that this makes clear that statutory smallholdings can benefit under the amalgamation scheme. This has exercised the minds of the smallholdings committee, of which I am a member, and I am glad that the matter is being cleared up.
I shall be glad if the Minister can give us any information about how the scheme is working, the types of amalgamation taking place, and whether the provision is doing what we all hoped it would.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I commend the comments made with reference to amalgamation by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). When the 1967 Bill was going through the House, my hon. Friends and I pointed out that there was always the danger of small units being swallowed by larger units. This is happening in some cases, and the time has come when it should be looked at seriously and necessary amendments made to stop it happening.
This is an excellent scheme. In my area it has already had good results. Small units have been amalgamated, enabling the tenant or owner occupier to have a viable unit.
There has been a reasonable trial period. It is a weakness of the Act that under the present regulations it is possible for a large farmer who has the means to buy up a small unit. I am not criticising the Measure—I have been all for it—but we should look at this aspect. I ask the Minister to look very seriously at it because the time has come for necessary changes to be made.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: There are three things about the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) which endear him to the House. The first is the faith and the second the hope with which he perpetually goes about his exposition of complicated Clauses. The third is the charity with which we for our part accept nearly everything he says in that blind faith and hope.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for smiling when he said that this Clause simplified administration. That was a statement of faith and hope. One thing it certainly does not do is to simplify understanding of the original Section 26. When he said, looking at


me, that he and I agree that we must always try to avoid a complicated paragraph, I felt that I should point out that he is urging us to adopt 20 or 30 of the most complicated paragraphs that it has been the job of this House to study.
I had always thought—not that I know anything about it—that reincarnation was supposed to be a rather pleasurable experience. Life was in the new spirit within the old body, or vice versa, and was supposed to be much better than it was before. But I am not certain that the Clause is much better as it reappears after its very short term of trans-substantiation from the Committee, where it suffered its demise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) is very much to be congratulated on the superlative degree of lucidity with which he examined the Clause for us tonight. Perhaps it would be an exaggeration to say that he had a slight difficulty with the Chair, when he remarked rather sadly that he had sunk his own bacon. I wondered whether perhaps he meant that he had cooked his own goose, which he is well known to be very fond of.
To be more serious—and I hope that the Minister will take this in the spirit in which it is meant—I think that the Clause is an example of legislation at its very worst. The very nearly three pages it covers consist partly of a chopping and changing of a Section debated for three whole mornings only two years ago. It shows a considerable lack of foresight by the Government that they should have found it necessary to do this after such a short period, and demonstrates a great lack of consideration for those who have the appalling job of having to interpret it. It is a nightmare.
But I do not say that we cannot find anything good in the Clause. Both my hon. Friends have praised the new paragraph (5A), of Section 27. Undoubtedly we have something useful there for which many widows and possibly even widowers, may well be very grateful. If an amalmagation is put under way and the farmer dies before it is finished, the widow would almost certainly have to leave the farm. That is almost inevitable as things stand. But now she will get some benefit. The drafting is very complicated, though perhaps it is as simple

as it can be. I accept the Minister's claim that it has been changed for the better since the original Bill.
Reference has also been made to the change in Section 26(5). This is not an improvement. In the section we have the amalgamation grant written in as half of the approved expenditure. I am well aware that the grant will be 60 per cent. for two years under the new announcement, but the Minister is seeking powers to vary this under a Statutory Instrument, which we shall be unable to amend. On the whole, I prefer to see a thing specified in the Statute and not left entirely to the Government's discretion.

9.0 p.m.

Paragraph (b) is the most classic example of the asking for a blank cheque. As my hon. Friend said, everything was specifically detailed in the Bill, and it is quite right that should be, but subsection (3) of Section 26 of the 1967 Act is now removed wholesale. Everything, such as costs incurred on amalgamation or boundary adjustment, and the like, was laid down for everyone to see quite clearly, but we now have the Minister being allowed to specify whatever he likes.

I do not know why this is being done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has often observed, and I agree, that if one starts by putting one thing in and then goes on and makes a list, the day may come when one finds that one has forgotten something. Do we have specifications, surveyors' fees, legal costs, stamp duty, conveyancing, compensation for disturbance, and the like, because it has already struck the Government that something has been forgotten? If that is the case, it would have been better to have added matter than leave everything else out.

Looking back to the time when we were asked to spend morning after morning on Section 26 of the 1967 Act and listening to the Government's insistence on the merits of that Act, I find it strange that that work should now have been thrown out of the window. I am glad to have had the assurance that the Government have no intention of removing from eligibility for grant any of the matters listed in Section 26, but I am afraid that I cannot—not that I am particularly sorry not to be able to do so—congratulate the Government on doing what they have


done here. It is the most appalling ragbag of an Amendment with which Parliament has ever been confronted.

Mr. Mackie: With permission, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) have criticised the wording of the new Clause. I agree that it is complicated, but it has to be remembered that between 1951 and 1964 40,000 or 50,000 farmers went out of action. They got no help in the time of a Conservative Government. When I went to the Ministry I assumed that Ministers before me had had a survey made, because they must have been worried about the situation, but I found that nothing had been done. I had a small survey made which showed many of the heartbreaks in this business of having to get out of non-viable farms.
We have legislated in the way set out, because it is a very complicated business for Parliament to help these people. Two things have to be done. One has to help a man going out either by lump sum or pension and, at the same time, one has to tidy things up when farms have to be amalgamated. The two things together make a very complicated operation. The Clause may be difficult to understand, but hon. Members must realise that we are attempting something that has never been done before.
I know that we spent three mornings in Committee on this matter, but we now have experience. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) asked how the operation was going on, and whether I had any figures. Quite frankly, the reason for the alteration is that the exercise has not gone quite so well as we had wanted. However, we are benefiting from experience, and I see nothing wrong about that. For the United Kingdom, the total number of applications is about 3,500 and the number approved is 1,159. As regards costs, remodelling works total just under £4 million and for incidental costs the figure is £126,000, making a total of just over £4 million. That is the estimated cost of all the approvals.
With the other things we have done, reducing the period and, in particular, dealing with the complicated matter where minors have to be allowed for through trustees, and so on, we hope that matters will proceed more quickly in the

future. Most hon. Members have welcomed the provision relating to a widow or the deceased person's estate, and I am sure that that was the right course to take.
I come now to Amendment (d), to which the hon. Member for Westmorland spoke. I realise that the amount of removals from the 1967 Act is criticised, but we are removing from Section 26 the description of the costs and remodelling works eligible for grants, and we are taking power to specify them in the scheme, for two important reasons. First, as I said when introducing the new Clause, we think it makes sense to pay grant on remodelling works under the proposed farm capital grant scheme. This will make it easier for the farmer who wants to get grant on items in addition to remodelling works, because he will be able to get grant for the lot under one scheme. Also, it will simplify administration. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member will disagree on that.
Second, having removed the provisions relating to remodelling works from Section 26 to a scheme, we thought it sensible to do the same with the provisions relating to incidental costs, so as not to have so much in one Measure and so much in another. That is precisely what we have done: the detailed description of both the incidental costs and the types of remodelling works eligible for grant will be specified in schemes.
If any hon. Members still have doubt about whether we shall pay everything we have paid hitherto, I am ready to repeat the assurance which I gave earlier that it is our intention to pay grant on the same range of incidental costs as at present. With that assurance, hon. Members will not, I am sure, wish to press their Amendment.
Now Amendment (e). I have some sympathy for the principle underlying this. There is a similar time limit in the present scheme which requires proposals for approval for grant on remodelling works to be submitted within one year of the completion of the land transactions, and proposals for approval for grant on incidental costs to be submitted before the land transactions are completed.
It is our intention to include similar provisions to these in the new scheme. I think it preferable to do this rather than write a time limit into the Bill,


because it allows greater flexibility. I know that great play has been made of the word "flexibility" in Committees over the years in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West and I have been concerned, but there is value in it. This is a case in which it will be of advantage to have greater flexibility, and in any event we are not convinced that we should allow as long a period as the two years proposed in the Amendment. We shall, in accordance with Section 26(6) of the 1967 Act, as amended by new Clause No. 2, require any remodelling works approved for grant to be
necessary or desirable as a consequence of an amalgamation, or necessary as a consequence of a boundary adjustment".
We must have applications within a year of the land transactions being completed in order to assess with reasonable accuracy whether they are a consequence of the amalgamation or boundary adjustment. I am not suggesting that this could not be seen after two years, but the longer the matter goes on the more difficult it will be to assess with reasonable accuracy whether they were the consequence of an amalgamation or boundary adjustment.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: On the question of timing, could the hon. Gentleman clarify a point which has been worrying me in regard to the original 15-year period? What is the commencing date of this period?

Mr. Mackie: The commencing date for the 15 years will be the date when the Bill is passed.
If applicants change their minds about the precise type of remodelling works they want after they have submitted their proposals, we shall be ready, as we are under the present scheme, to accept some variations of the proposals originally submitted by the substitution of alternative proposals designed to achieve the same general purpose. I do not think that there is a lot between us on this point, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not press their Amendment.
If I remember rightly, I dare not touch on the next Amendment, but I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman managed to make his point before you, Mr. Speaker, stopped him.
Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, I must compliment the hon. Member for Westmorland on the tremendous study that he has made of the various alterations, and for going into great detail. I would have liked to be as clever as the hon. Gentleman and reply off the cuff, but I shall look into the points made by him and let him know whether he is right or wrong. Because of the amount of study that he has done I hope that he is right, but for our sake I hope that he is wrong.
I have answered most of the points raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West. I have not, however, dealt with what he said about large farms swallowing up small ones. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) raised the same point. This is a difficult question. I recall that it was raised twice by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson). If we were to say that only two non-viable farms could amalgamate, or that only an uncommercial farm and a farm of a certain size could amalgamate we would remove perhaps the best market for the owner-occupier who wanted to get out of a small farm. It might be necessary to provide some system of compensation if we were to do that. As it is, there is no sign that bigger farms are swallowing up the smaller ones. Generally speaking, in the Ross and Cromarty constituency, amalgamations take place between farms of about the same size.
This is a voluntary scheme, and if the farmer wished to sell to a bigger farm it would be difficult for the Government to say that he could not do that. It must go to the most able person who can pay the price. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can see how difficult it would be to write this into legislation, and at the same time be fair to the outgoing tenant or owner-occupier, but mostly the owner-occupier, because he is the one who would suffer.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West referred to the complicated provisions of the Clause. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we have no intention of removing anything from the original 1967 Act. We are doing something which has never been done before. It gives us the edge when dealing with farms of this size, and it will continue to give us the


edge over our Continental competitors. We have had a little experience of this. We hope that that experience and the alterations which we have made will help things to move a little faster than they are doing now. What we have done will be of tremendous help, particularly to elderly people on non-viable farms. I hope that the House will accept the new Clause, but not the two Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

NEW PROVISION AS TO STANDARD COSTS, ETC. FOR CERTAIN GRANTS

(1) In such cases, and subject to such conditions, as may from time to time be determined by the Minister or Ministers concerned with the making in any part of the United Kingdom of any description of grants to which this section applies, the cost of any works, or the amount of any other cost or expenditure, shall, if the applicant for grant so elects, be taken for the purpose of determining the amount of the grant as such standard cost or amount as the Minister or Ministers in question may from time to time fix with the approval of the Treasury.

(2) The grants to which this section applies are as follows—

(a) grants under section 16 of the Agriculture Act 1937 or section 15 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act 1940 (drainage and water supply);
(b) improvement grants under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts 1946 to 1956;
(c) grants under section 1 of the Horticulture Act 1960 (horticultural improvements) or section 3 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 (orchard clearing); and
(d) grants under section 30 (farm improvements), section 41 (hill land improvements) or section 61 (co-operative activities) of the Agriculture Act 1967.—[Mr. Mackie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second Time.
This new Clause will enable Ministers to fix standard costs from time to time for various works in certain capital grant schemes. A farmer can choose between having his grant based on the actual cost of the work or on prescribed standard costs for specified types of work. One of the advantages of standard costs to the

farmer is that he does not need to obtain estimates or tenders or provide receipted accounts in support of his claim. Standard costs will also help the farmer who does the work himself, since on an actual cost basis he could not obtain grant on the cost of his own labour. To qualify for grants on standard costs the improvement must comply with all the detailed specifications set out for that type of work in the Standard Costs Regulations. There have been hard cases that I have had to deal with where we have had to reject claims made on a standard cost basis because of some minor deviation from the detailed specifications.
Hon. Members will understand that these specifications are at present described in a long and complicated Statutory Instrument giving the whole list of works that can be done on a standard cost basis. Grant has had to be refused when work deviated, sometimes only slightly, from the specifications, even though the improvement was perfectly satisfactory and eligible in all other respects. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) wanted some flexibility. I am sorry that he is not here because I warned him that I would be moving this new Clause.
It is clear that we need more flexibility to accept claims which may deviate slightly from specifications, but where such deviations are not in practice significant. The new Clause which provides for the new unified grants will enable us to adopt this more flexible approach by making it possible for the standard costs specifications for the grant to be fixed administratively instead of by Statutory Instrument; that is to say we will give our officers a list of things instead of the present system. We also need to be able to adopt this more flexible approach for outstanding applications under existing schemes and applications under such schemes as the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, which will continue alongside the new unified scheme for farm capital grants.
This new Clause permits us to fix standard costs administratively for all the schemes within subsection (2) of the Clause so that we can lay down the standard costs specifications for them as well as for the new unified scheme. The specifications will no longer be prescribed by Statutory Instrument but will be pub-


lished in a leaflet. Apart from the fundamental advantage of giving this greater flexibility in the treatment of grant claims this policy has the incidental advantage of enabling us to make changes in the specifications rather more promptly to meet fresh developments which arise, such as technical advances, or the need for metrication. The schemes covered by the new Clause are the grants for drainage and water supplies, for the improvement of livestock rearing land. for the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, grants for orchard clearance—and I do not know why the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was interested in non-clearance of orchards—grants for the Farm Improvement Scheme, the Hill Land Improvement Scheme and co-operation grants.

Mr. Jopling: I welcome flexibility in such matters. I have heard of cases where improvements have altered slightly from the original plans and there has been considerable difficulty in obtaining a grant. What puzzles me is why it has been necessary to introduce this new Clause I am not clear what has necessitated its introduction.
For many years we have had standard costs as an alternative to specific prices for the work to be done. How often in the past have the standard costs had to be altered, presumably upwards? With the rate at which costs have been rising in recent years the standard costs would need to be altered very often. The introduction of S.E.T. has escalated standard costs. I should be surprised if the figures did not show that in the last six years costs have gone shooting up.
During the six years in which the Government have been in office farmers' costs have risen by £41 million a year, whereas during the previous six years of Conservative Government farmers' costs were rising by only £17 million a year. This will be reflected in the standard costs which have been applied. In the last six years costs have been rising at two and a half times the rate at which they were rising during the previous six years, and this is a scandalous situation. Will the Minister tell us how often the standard costs have been changed, and to what extent they have risen during this Government's period of office?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has put his finger on the reason for the introduction of the new Clause. I entirely agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that one of the difficulties with standard costs has been that any slight deviation has meant that a grant has been refused. If the Minister continued to administer the existing scheme, he would have to bring in new regulations because of rising costs, and this is why the Minister has brought forward the new Clause.
I question whether this is the right way of doing it. I fully realise the difficulties that arise when costs get out of line with the standards laid down by regulation. According to lines 7 and 8 of the new Clause, the determination by the Minister can be made only with the approval of the Treasury. Presumably, the Treasury will lay down strict guide lines. Although the Minister will have complete carte blanche to dispose of a large amount of public money, he will not have to tell Parliament how this will be done.
The Minister mentioned metrication, and what I have to say applies equally to decimalisation. The new Clause means that there will be no need for the Minister to come to the House to show how the grants and standard costs have been arranged by the Minister and approved by the Treasury when metrication and decimalisation take place. The Minister should have to explain to the House exactly how the standard costs will be adjusted when the new systems are adopted. Instead of this method whereby the determination is made solely by the Minister, it would have been easier and better if there had been laid down in regulations a bracket within which the standard cost grant could be operated. This would give complete freedom to Ministers, although I accept that it would be fettered by the Treasury having to be called in.
Will the Treasury have to give approval to every particular matter? Can the Minister change the determination of the level of standard costs at any particular moment with the approval of the Treasury from day to day, from week to week, or from month to month? What exact form will this take in future?
A good many farming constituents will be bewildered later on by the cost the


Minister is to adopt. He will need to take great care and will need to give advance publicity to the new standard cost throughout the country, otherwise many people will not know what the levels are. Once again they will find that because they are outside the standard costs laid down by the Ministry, they will be refused grant on that basis and will need to get estimates and go through all the other rigmarole that is involved.
Therefore, I do not feel that this is a satisfactory way to deal with the problem, although I accept that the existing system is not as satisfactory as it should be.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) asked how often alterations in standard costs have taken place. They have been altered twice since 1967. The hon. Gentleman also asked why this change was necessary. At present there are four different grants, which I will not detail, going back to previous Acts. We have then the new amalgamated grants, and we wish to alter the situation so that they can all be dealt with together. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, we need to give a good reason why we should do this.
The hon. Member for Westmorland used his short speech to mention costs, and I do not want to get out of order. The hon. Gentleman knows that general costs in agriculture have gone up as a result of wage increases. I do not think he would suggest otherwise, in view of the fact that hon. Members opposite have suggested that the agricultural industry should pay better wages. They cannot have it both ways.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West said that the main reason for the new Clause is not to enable us to change the standard costs specification more frequently, since we do not want to do that, but to enable us to adopt a more flexible approach to administration so that slight deviations in a farmers' schemes will not differ in the matter of grant. This is why this is being taken out of the area of the Statutory Instrument and being put out in a leaflet. The hon. Gentleman made the point that we must have the approval of the Treasury for almost everything done in Parliament in voting money.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not understand how this changes matters. If he is going to put these matters in a leaflet, he will need to lay down the standard of grant. How does this make it more flexible, unless, by laying it down in a leaflet, the hon. Gentleman will argue that it need not be exactly as laid down. This will provide for an extraordinary amount of flexibility of which I do not approve.

Mr. Mackie: Hon. Members cannot have it all ways. If we are to simplify the matter and make the thing easier to operate administratively, then if it is put in a Statutory Instrument officers in the field will need to have with them that Instrument and to follow every detail of it. I see that some hon. Members have the document with them and they will see that it is six or seven pages long. If farmers do not follow it closely, any deviation will mean that they will not get the grant. If it is just put out in a leaflet, not in the form of a Statutory Instrument, then officers in the field can be more flexible in dealing with any deviation. That is the point I am making.
Any change in the standard costs is totally different. That is the reason why we are doing it. It is not so that we can change the standard costs when we wish, although it will be easier when metrification comes in.

Mr. Stodart: I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that this will look after deviations and make matters easier. My impression of standard costs has always been that they are pitched a good deal lower than the actual cost of the work. I presume that this is always deliberate policy so that, if a farmer wants to get on without the trouble of getting two or three competitive tenders, he can do the work on the basis of standard costs. If the object of the Clause is to make the changing of the rates of standard costs easier to do, then it is a sensible one, because there is no doubt that the need for a change in the rates is much greater than was the case 10 years ago when costs were not rising at the speed at which they are today. However, the hon. Gentleman must explain what he means by making deviations easier or more flexible.

Mr. Mackie: I am sorry if I have not made it clear. At present, the standard costs are laid down in detail in a Statutory Instrument. I am not saying whether they are too low or too high. If a farmer elects to go for improvements on the basis of standard costs, he has to carry them out in detail and, because it is a Statutory Instrument, our officers have to follow it. As a result, if a farmer deviates, he may lose grant. If it is put into the administrative machine in the form of a leaflet, our officers can be more flexible in the event of a deviation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

ERADICATION OF BRUCELLOSIS

1) The appropriate Minister may, in accordance with a scheme made by the appropriate authority with the consent of the Treasury, pay to the owner of any herd of cattle kept in the United Kingdom, or to any person concerned with the management of such a herd, such sums as that Minister thinks fit to expend in connection with the eradication of brucellosis, and may in particular, if the scheme so provides, pay any such sum by way of supplement to, and subject to any terms or conditions governing the payment of, any grant or subsidy payable under or by virtue of any enactment other than this section.
(2) A board constituted by any scheme relating to the marketing of milk and made under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1968 or any enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall, in accordance with any scheme in that behalf made by the appropriate authority with the consent of the Treasury, make to producers registered under the scheme constituting the board payments in connection with the eradication of brucellosis, being payments in respect of milk sold, or deemed for the purpose of any payments under the scheme constituting the board to have been produced, on or after 1st April 1970; and the sums from time to time required by such a board for the making of payments under this subsection shall be paid to the board by the appropriate Minister.
(3) Paragraph (c) of section 5 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 (under which the Minister may make orders prohibiting or regulating the movement of cattle into, out of or within any area which is for the time being an eradication area or an attested area) shall be amended by adding at the end of that paragraph the words "or, if the area is an eradication area or an attested area for purposes connected with the control of brucellosis, imposing with respect to cattle in that area such other prohibitions or requirements as he may consider necessary or desirable for the purpose of eradicating that disease".

(4) Payments made by any Minister under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section shall be treated as production grants for the purposes of section 3 of the Agriculture Act 1957.
(5) In subsections (1) and (2) of this section—
"the appropriate Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or, in relation to herds kept in Scotland or sums required for making payments to producers in Scotland, the Secretary of State; and
"the appropriate authority" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or, for the purposes of a scheme relating to herds or producers in Wales (including Monmouthshire), that Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly or, for the purposes of a scheme relating to herds or producers in Scotland, the Secretary of State.
(6) A scheme under subsection (1) or (2) of this section—

(a) may relate to herds or producers in one part only of the United Kingdom or (the appropriate authorities acting jointly for the purpose, if different) in two or more such parts;
(b) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme under that subsection;
(c) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Mackie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this new Clause, I have suggested that we take Government Amendment No. 54, plus Amendment (g), in subsection (1), after 'provides', insert '(a)', Amendment (h), in subsection (1) at end insert:
(b) pay such sum as represents the difference between the price fetched by an infected animal when slaughtered and that which it is estimated by one of his inspectors that the animal would have fetched, if sold in the open market in sound condition.
and Amendment (i), in subsection (3), at end insert:
Section 7 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 shall apply for the purposes of this section in the same way as it applies to offences under the said Act.
I have been asked by the Opposition whether I will allow a Division on Amendment (h). I am prepared to do that, but I think that there is some uncertainty among the Opposition about the Amendment on which they wish to divide the House.

Mr. Godber: It is on Amendment (h).

Mr. Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Mackie: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, with this new Clause we are considering Amendment No. 54, which proposes the deletion of Clause 100. The new Clause is intended to take its place. In this way, we can look at the brucellosis scene as a whole rather than piece-meal.
If we are to free the national herd from brucellosis there must be an effective inter-play between voluntary accreditation and compulsory area eradication. Neither will succeed by itself. Voluntary accreditation alone would leave us with "islands" of infection; area eradication alone would deny us replacements for slaughtered animals. What we need is a programme carefully integrated to ensure that, as we enter upon compulsory eradication in some areas, voluntary accreditation continues to make headway elsewhere in the country. We have tabled our new Clause to permit a balanced approach of that kind.
When the hon. Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) moved Clause 100 upstairs, he explained that its object was to persuade the Government
… to institute a compulsory area eradication scheme with full compensation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 10th March, 1970; c. 1097.]
and that the tuberculosis provisions in Section 3 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, had been borrowed and modified for that purpose.
Let me clarify the statutory position here. Section 3 of the 1950 Act was neither intended nor used for conducting compulsory area eradication schemes against tuberculosis. It was the vehicle for paying bonuses to owners of beef and dairy herds voluntarily participating in the Attested Herds Scheme.
The House will be aware that the Government have decided to bring in a system of bonuses—"incentives" is probably a more realistic term—to give further stimulus to the voluntary accreditation of brucella-free herds. The framework of this new scheme has been constructed in consultation with the leaders of the industry, and was announced in last week's White Paper. I ought perhaps to enlarge a little on these proposals.
The present Accredited Herds Scheme was designed for the late '60s as the

precursor of compulsory eradication. The new incentives scheme is purposely being shaped for the '70s as the partner of compulsory eradication. From now on we want owners of the healthier herds to go for voluntary accreditation. Those with more heavily infected herds may decide to await compulsory eradication. I am confident that the milk and beef premiums will give owners of clean or relatively clean herds a very real incentive to gain and retain accredited status thus swelling our reservoir of replacements and sustaining it as area eradication programmes develop. The immediate benefits will go—rightly, as I see it—to those who have pioneered accreditation and who bring their registered herds into the new scheme. They will be eligible for the milk premium from 1st April and for the beef supplement in the calendar year 1970.
Full details of the new scheme will be announced as soon as possible. Meantime, subsections (1) and (2) of the new Clause, which have purposely been drawn in the widest possible terms to allow for a developing situation, provide basic powers that would enable us to pay incentive grants of any kind either directly—and linked to other grants where appropriate—or through the milk marketing boards.
The new scheme will provide the sinews of compulsory eradication. My right hon. Friend has already announced our aim of starting limited eradication projects next year, and preliminary discussions with organisations concerned have already started.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly made the point that the eradication of brucellosis is a somewhat different problem from the eradication of tuberculosis. He was very fair about this. I sometimes wish that others were as seized of the point as he is. However, at least where the statutory position is concerned, much the same powers will serve for compulsory eradication of both diseases. We eradicated tuberculosis under the powers available in the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950. For example, we declared eradication areas under Section 5(a), regulated movements under Section 5(c), and so on. Section 84(3) enables comparable arrangements to be introduced for brucellosis. However, the lessons of TB eradication, and the nature of brucellosis as a disease, make it clear


that supplementary powers may be needed in some instances—for example, to regulate the vaccination and testing of animals in eradication or accredited areas. Subsection (3) of the new Clause would give us enabling powers for measures of that kind.
To sum up, the new Clause covers most of the ground in Clause 100, and much more besides. I ought, however, to say a word about the timing and compensation aspects of compulsory eradication because these were specifically inserted by hon. Members opposite when the Bill was upstairs. They wanted to hustle us—I do not mind that—into area eradication by making it mandatory to start on 1st January, 1971. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the timetable for eradicating an area is more important than the precise starting date. Inevitably there will be very strict controls over movement of stock into and within eradication areas. These will be irksome, and if we start prematurely they will drag on unnecessarily. In our planning and discussions for next year's compulsory eradication programme, we shall aim for a starting date which is consistent with clearance of the area, and lifting of the necessary restrictions, in the minimum time.
I have already explained that the voluntary scheme and the incentives which go with it are directed primarily towards healthier herds. To offer compensation in that sector would simply attract infected herds, which would be better dealt with by compulsory area eradication programmes when special financial assistance will be available.
In tabling new Clause 100 in Committee, hon. Members opposite wanted compensation in compulsory areas to be paid at 100 per cent. Under the Government's new Clause as it stands, or, indeed, by the application of Section 17 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, a scheme can be introduced for compensation at any desired level. What is at issue, therefore, is not the statutory provisions we need but the level of compensation which should be incorporated in any schemes that may be tabled in years ahead. Clearly, there must be consultations with the industry on this, but it may help if I indicate the general approach we have in mind.
In the compulsory eradication situation, there will be instances where healthy animals may have to be slaughtered because of excessive exposure to brucellosis in a herd heavily infected with that disease. In such instances we envisage paying 100 per cent. compensation. Elsewhere, we shall be dealing with reactors. Here I must be quite categorical and say that the Government do not intend to pay 100 per cent. compensation. Those with memories of T.B. eradication would readily agree that we simply cannot afford deliberately to create a situation in which it pays people to buy up reactors in the confident knowledge that they—and any other animals they may infect—will command 100 per cent. compensation. What we want is a premium on vigilance against the disease, including prudent purchasing. The special emphasis of Government approach to brucellosis consists of paying rewards for healthy animals and not inflating the value of reactors.
For compulsory eradication, the broad approach which we have outlined to the industry, and which has still to be discussed in detail, was given in last week's White Paper. Briefly—and this is a quite new concept from anything that was done in the T.B. age—we propose to apply an incentive approach for owners of herds which are subject to compulsory eradication programmes, although their incentives will be augmented by a flat-rate "replacement grant" for slaughtered reactors. The replacement grants will take the form of a headage payment which, judging by the speech he made in Committee, will commend itself to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). In this way we shall retain the principle of putting a premium on the healthy animals in the herd, while offering help towards replacing reactors that are compulsorily slaughtered.
We still have some way to go in our discussions with the industry, more particularly on the arrangements for compulsory eradication, but I have been encouraged by the degree of support already accorded to these new initiatives, including the welcome which they have enjoyed from the British Veterinary Association. I have also been fortunate in an assurance of assistance from the chairmen of the milk marketing boards. I hope that the proposals will commend themselves to the


House so that the Government can have the necessary enabling powers.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at his figure of £5 million expenditure in a full year, as provided in the White Paper? If the figures which his right hon. Friend gave are correct, there are a little under 300,000 cows in the dairy herd which are brucella-free, which could amount to no more than £4 per cow per annum, taking an average of 1,000 gallons per cow. How does he arrive at a figure of £5 million spread over a full year——

Mr. Speaker: Order. These points should be made in debate rather than by intervention.

Mr. Mackie: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will reply to that point when he replies to the debate.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Stodart: I think that one should express a measure of both congratulation and sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) who, not only in his first year as a Member of the House but in, I think, the very first Committee of which he was a member, succeeded in getting a new Clause into a Bill. Now he will realise perhaps the cruelty of parliamentary proceedings as he is here tonight to watch the Government do their best to get that Clause out again.
I begin by quoting a publication. When we are talking about brucellosis it is important to know what the problem is, and I hope that I shall not exaggerate it. I quote from the publication "World Medicine" dated 23rd September, 1969, which says:
Britain is one of the few countries in Western Europe which still has endemic brucellosis. In cows, the "natural" hosts, the disease causes abortion, loss of milk yield, and lowered fertility. In man it can cause anything from a mild transient fever to a chronic and practically incurable infection that can produce a lifetime of misery.
Despite the fact that the disease is not notifiable, it is one which I think has a very grave incidence. It is interesting that a good deal of work has been done by the Aberdeen Medical Laboratory in trying to ascertain the widespread nature of the disease. It is significant that of 2,000 samples of blood sent to

the laboratory in 1967, no fewer than 600—that is, one in every three—showed infection at some time—not necessarily in 1967 but at some time—and three people out of every thousand in the North-East of Scotland are suspected of having brucellosis.
Certainly that makes the estimate of the overt disease being present in one out of every 500 of the population—and that is equivalent to 1,000 cases every year—look perfectly possible. Therefore, it is a disease in a very big way and there are some who, on good and substantial grounds reckon that the true figure is double that which I have just quoted.
The North-East of Scotland is a very well-known livestock rearing area and it may therefore be that the incidence is greater. It certainly is a heavy incidence and it gives credibility to the estimates that 50 per cent. or even 60 per cent., of all veterinary surgeons have been infected by the disease.

Mr. James Davidson: As a Member representing an agricultural constituency in the North-East of Scotland, I feel bound to say that I put a Question to the Minister not long ago asking him to say which areas of the United Kingdom were worst affected, and the North-East of Scotland was not one of them. I hasten to add that I should not like to say which areas of the United Kingdom are worst affected, but the North-East of Scotland is not one of them. If the north-east of Scotland is badly affected, there are other areas of the United Kingdom which are affected a great deal more.

Mr. Stodart: That is an extremely helpful observation to my case. But the disease is a good deal more serious than many people suppose. What certainly is true is that possibly more work has been done in Aberdeen on this disease than anywhere else, and obviously the work there has been drawn from the surrounding countryside and therefore perhaps more has been published from that area than from any other.
So far as the disease in our cattle stocks is concerned, as opposed to the human infection, brucellosis is the only disease of cattle, other than cystitis, which is of major economic significance and which is prevalent in the United Kingdom at the moment. The position varies


very much from district to district—and this probably ties up with what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West has just said. I understand that in Scotland as a whole 1,000 herds are fully accredited, that 12½ per cent. of the herds in the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board area are fully accredited, that 20 per cent. in the north of Scotland area are fully accredited, and that 30 per cent. in the County of Ayrshire are fully accredited. Therefore, there are different concentrations of the disease in different parts of the country.
Eradication or accreditation is taking place at the rate of about 3 per cent. per annum. I understand, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom) observed in Committee, that this, on a quite faultless calculation, would mean that, unless the rate was stepped up, it would take some 30 years to eliminate the disease altogether. One has to remember also that the 3 per cent. has been the pace while we have been dealing with cleaner herds and that a reduction in the pace becomes almost inevitable when we start on the more infected herds.
Thus, we now have this new Clause from the Government. One good point in it is that subsection (3) allows for area eradication to he made by order. Although I am not quite clear about it from the hon. Gentleman's speech, I understand that the payments to be made, by the Ministry in England and Wales and the Scottish Office north of the Border in the form of production grants for beef cows, and by the Milk Marketing Boards for dairy cows, are clear enough and are written into subsections (1) and (2).
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that these subsections or some other provisions in the Clause allow for payment of compensation. If that is so, I have not yet stumbled upon that provision. But, from the White Paper, we know that the incentives are to be 37s. 6d. for a beef cow and 1¼ d. per gallon for milk. What has been the basis of this calculation? If one takes the average yield of a milk cow——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman drifting into the farm price review? We are debating brucellosis.

Mr. Stodart: By no stretch of the imagination, Mr. Speaker. The bonus payments are for the eradication of brucellosis. The average milk yield of a cow in the United Kingdom is about 800 gallons annually. That, at 1¼d. a gallon, will, by my calculation, give each dairy cow an incentive of 83s. 4d. The beef cow gets 37s. 6d. Why is there this very emphatic favouring of the dairy cow as against the beef cow so far as the clearing out of brucellosis is concerned, although it is a disease which, I imagine, is found in both?
Obstacles have always been put up against those of us who have been calling for a determined campaign to eradicate the disease. Three reasons are given—first, the shortage of veterinary staff, secondly, the cost, and thirdly, the numbers of clean replacements which are available. Not everybody, even in the veterinary world, would accept the first objection that there is not the veterinary staff available to mount a really determined campaign.
The second obstacle, that of cost, is one which has been the subject of a great deal of controversy. The estimate of the Ministry has been put at between £40 million and £50 million and yet—and this was a point raised with the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee upstairs and I believe he gave no reply, nor did he even make any reference to it—the Ulster achievement in eradication, if applied pro rata in this country would cost not £40 million or £50 million but £10 million. This apparent anomaly is something we would certainly wish to have explained to us in more detail tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman, however, has always held very strongly to the third obstacle, the number of replacements available if we were to go full steam ahead. Frankly, this perhaps is why the new Clause strikes me as lacking any real air of determination to get rid of this disease and to tackle it as a really major scourge; because we must realise that the risks to infection are greater. I believe they will tend to get greater than they have been previously because herds are getting larger as each year passes and they are now tending much more to be kept loose in yards rather than tied up in barns. The longer that eradication is delayed, the greater


is the risk to the herds that are at this moment clean.
Reactors have to be kept off the market and I am certain that this can be done only if compensation is paid. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has said, and everybody has agreed with him, that we all deplore the wilful selling of reactors to other breeders. But let us not blind our eyes to the fact that that does happen. It should not happen but it does, and I am quite certain that it will continue to happen until compensation is paid. There must be penalties for those who offend against regulations of this kind. I suggested upstairs that, once compensation is paid, anyone who sells—and I suppose the words as we have heard them this afternoon are "knowingly or recklessly"—a reactor ought to have his milk licence removed. One ought to get very tough with such people; and any dealer who knowingly or recklessly trades in animals that he knows to be reactors ought to be prosecuted and handled very roughly. The Clause lacks reality because of the items that are left out, such as the question of compensation. It is essential for a successful policy——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the proceedings on the Agriculture Bill be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Stodart: The Farmers Weekly of 13th March last carried a report saying:
An all-party committee of the House of Lords has been set up to press the Government to introduce a slaughter and compensation scheme for eradicating brucellosis.
One noble Lord, the report said, had said that it was hard to determine the cost of such a scheme, but, based on Northern Ireland's work, a slaughter and compensation policy could cost £9 million.
The immediate past president of the Ayrshire Cattle Society, Mr. Robin Forrest, said, as reported in the Journal of the Scottish N.F.U.:
We may not be in a position financially to afford a full-scale eradication policy, but a much more positive approach to the prob-

lem, at least in our dairy herds, is overdue. Financial incentives, wisely devised, and spread over some years, accompanied by action against the irresponsible, could do much.
The Minister will recall some words that were cruelly written about him by the Chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, who does not pull his punches. In a newspaper report of December, 1968, a headline read:
Kill infective cattle, say Milk Boards.
Mr. William Young strongly advocated the slaughtering of reactors and the payment of compensation along the lines of a scheme which, I gather, he put to the Scottish Office. It would be interesting to know what reaction came from Government Departments to that scheme.
Section 7 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950—which we say should apply in any brucellosis campaign—makes it an offence for anyone to make a false statement in order to get compensation and an offence to obstruct anyone who wants to inspect animals suspected of having the disease.
It surprises me that there is nothing in the new Clause dealing with the subject of offences against those who try to take advantage, be it of incentives or compensation, and this should have been included in this proposal, which, as drafted, lacks bite. Unless there is compensation and unless offences are dealt with, we cannot believe that the Government are serious in this matter.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has covered the main point which I had intended to make. I wish, at the outset, to make it clear that I welcome any attempt by the Government, no matter how inadequate, to eradicate brucellosis or even to start on the process of eradication.
It seems that the beginning of subsection (1) of the new Clause could cater for a future scheme for giving compensation, and that the latter part could allow for additional incentives to be given. Subsection (2) concerns the dairy side, and, in this connection, last week-end I discussed these proposals, along with the Price Review, with farmers in Derbyshire, where there is a fair amount of brucellosis. Whether it is greater or less than the amount mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West I do


not know. Farmers with accredited herds have, I was told, received a document circulated by the Ministry telling them what action they should take. This is very worrying.
Although these incentives in the Price Review White Paper and embodied in this new Clause are to encourage farmers to have their herds accredited, what the Ministry has put forward is a disincentive. In the document which has come from the Ministry it appears that those who have accredited herds have a choice. They can go into the new scheme when it is made next month and thereby get bonus payments for beef or dairy cattle. Assuming it is for dairy cattle they will have to opt out and get no compensation for break-downs in their herds. Slaughter has to take place following break-downs on the third test. If they opt out they are encouraged by the Ministry to insure their herd.
The rough figures which the Minister gave for an 85-cow milking herd showed an increase of about £250 per year, yet the actual premium that would have to be paid to the N.F.U. insurance scheme is about £340 or £360. Therefore they would be worse off. In addition, they would suffer diminution and the actual cost of the animal slaughtered and the animals bought for replacement. The incentive in the choice facing those with accredited herds is not sufficient and will not have the desired effect.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester): My hon. Friend has postulated an insurance premium. Was it on the basis of a commercial herd or a pedigree herd?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It was on the basis of a commercial herd. Presumably on the basis of a pedigree herd the premium would be higher. The incentive would be greater to stay in the existing scheme whereby, if there should be a break-down in the herd, compensation would be paid for the slaughter of reactors.
This is not the right way to go about the matter. It is the wrong choice. The only way to effect an increase in the number of accredited herds or in eradication of brucellosis must be to bring in a compensation factor under lines 1–4 of subsection (1) of the new Clause. Those lines give the Minister power to bring

in compensation for slaughtered animals in herds which are at the moment accredited, be they pedigree or commercial herds.
I hope the Minister will look at this to see whether it can be done. Whether it should happen in particular areas or on a broader basis, I leave to the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers to say, I believe that without this compensation factor, which the Minister could bring under these lines, he will not get the incentive scheme working properly. Indeed, many of my farmers with accredited herds who came to see me on Saturday were definite in their decision that when the choice came they would not opt for the new scheme. This would be a great pity.
I welcome the fact that the Government are starting something, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West said, it is no good doing it unless it is done properly. That is very important. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind when he answers the debate.
Many factors and issues are involved. There are the questions whether we should start in a small area and whether there is a sufficient pool of accredited herds now in existence. I am told that in my own county of Derbyshire there are 100 accredited herds. I imagine that the position is different in other counties. Perhaps the Minister agrees that there is the beginning of the possibility of the introduction of a compulsory eradication scheme in several areas. This is something that he looked at very carefully. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes the incentive scheme to work, he must introduce compensation for those herds which are accredited now. If he does not, I do not believe that the incentive scheme will get off the ground for either the dairy or the beef herd.
I welcome the introduction of the scheme by the Minister. Although it is inadequate, it is a move in the right direction.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: During the period before the Price Review I had a number of meetings with farmers and vets in my constituency, and I was immensely impressed by their deep anxiety over the whole question of brucellosis. Many farmers in my part


of the world feel utterly frustrated and depressed about it, and accuse the Government and Parliament generally of being far too complacent about the whole matter. One vet, who has written to me several times, tells me that he and his family have had the disease three times. It is a horrible disease for human beings to get.
The disease is rampant in the South-West. I have no exact figures for my part of Wiltshire. Farmers are, naturally, reluctant to make public the details of their misfortunes. But I know several farmers who live near me who have the disease in their farms, and I realise the appalling effect it has on their herds. Brucellosis should be made a notifiable disease. I have raised that point in correspondence with the Minister, and I am not at all convinced by the answer being given. I do not want to go into all the arguments now, but it is no less than common sense that brucellosis should be included among notifiable diseases without delay. That would at least confirm that Parliament regards the matter as urgent and serious.
As I have said, I have no statistics for my constituency, but I gather that more than one in 10—possibly two in 10—of all animals in the country are affected by the disease, so we have a gigantic problem. The only proper solution is eradication. The Government are right to pursue that course, but it must proceed on a regional basis. My farmers in Wiltshire are very anxious, because they fear that their region may not be one of the priority regions. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance to farmers in Wiltshire when he replies.
If we are to have a policy of slaughter, there must also be a policy of proper compensation. It is nothing less than simple equity, and, therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be supported in the Lobby.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: As the owner of a herd that has gone through the accreditation scheme, I would first pay tribute to the work of the animal health officers in Scotland in trying to carry forward the present scheme. I have been tremendously impressed, not only by the interest

and hard work of those who have been responsible for it, but by their co-operation and helpfulness towards farmers who have tried to enter the scheme.
Secondly, I would support what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) in his intervention, that in the North-East of Scotland the incidence of the disease is only as great as the anxiety of those in that area to get it clear. The fact that figures are often quoted for that area is by no means indicative that the disease is worse in that area than in other areas. It is just that there is a far greater consciousness about the disease on the part of the public health and veterinary opinion in that area.
I should like to make four points. First, I welcome very much the introduction of the carrot rather than the stick in future plans of eradication. I am convinced that this is far more likely to progress the scheme than any compulsion. I shall not go into the question whether the carrot is adequate, but I support the arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House.
Secondly, I support the need for area eradication. This will provide the greatest safeguard if the scheme is to go forward as quickly as possible. There is public money involved in the scheme, and it must also be remembered that large sums of private money are put into the scheme by individual farmers.
The best preservation a farmer can have is to know that in the herds around him the disease has been eradicated. Even though a farmer may take every possible precaution, he can do nothing about a fox or a dog or somebody walking around and bringing infection on to his land from a neighbouring farm. Years of work and a great deal of money can be wasted in one moment, unless that farmer is surrounded by a whole area in which brucellosis has been eradicated.
My third point is to hope that the Minister will be satisfied about sources of replacement stock. Last summer I went to Ulster to obtain brucellosis-free stock. Even though the stock came from herds in which the disease had been eradicated, those animals still had to be treated and had to undergo blood tests and procedures in the same way as if they


were coming from herds which had not been freed from brucellosis.
While I was in Ulster I was much impressed by the way in which this scheme had progressed. I hope that we shall treat the sources of stock from Ulster as being generally accredited as though they were being brought from other accredited farms within the mainland of Great Britain. If we are to have these sources of replacement and to use them properly, we must make sure that the procedures involved in getting brucellosis-free stock do not clog up the whole machinery.
I met the Ministry's veterinary staff in Ulster and was greatly impressed not only by the work they did and by their experience in eradication, but also by the livestock salesmen and others in Ulster in their helpful attitude towards us and the rest of the United Kingdom in our desire to get such stock.
My last point is to hope that eradication will go forward and that the Minister in England and Wales and the Secretary of State in Scotland will make the public more aware of what is being done. The disease of brucellosis has a strong public health connotation. Because of the way in which it is treated in the Press, on television and on the radio we in agriculture are often given a bad name. There was a television programme on 26th January in which brucellosis was dealt with. I challenged the chairman of the B.B.C. about the way in which the programme was dealt with since there was an inference that milk from accredited herds could not necessarily be accepted as being free of brucellosis.
In a letter to me the chairman said that it was not possible that the information available to the production team would be such that raw milk from accredited herds could be guaranteed brucellosis-free. What a damnation that is of any official brucellosis eradication scheme, unless the Ministry and other official bodies can say that milk from accredited brucellosis-free herds is clean milk. I ask the Minister to publicise the scheme in the farming community and in the rest of the country amongst milk consumers, and to give a guarantee that fresh milk from brucellosis-free herds it is as good as, if not better than, pastuerised milk.

Mr. Hawkins: When I was about 16, I remember suffering from this disease for about six months, and it was very unpleasant. This is a serious matter not only for human beings but for our herds, and it will be serious when we enter the Common Market and, I hope sell cattle to the Continent because many continental countries are free from brucellosis. Ireland has successfully carried out a scheme, and the Conservative Government, before the 1964 election, were ready to start an eradication scheme in Scotland. There has been a scandalous delay in introducing a scheme. There has been a voluntary scheme and now we have another scheme which is better than the last one, but we are still lagging behind. I have a lot to do with markets and the sale of cattle and I am convinced that an area scheme, with compulsory slaughter and full compensation is the only way to eradicate the disease within a reasonable time.
After the foot-and-mouth epidemic, when many people on the Welsh border, in Shropshire and elsewhere, wanted to replenish herds, they found that cattle which had probably failed the test were being passed across into this area, and the incidence of the disease in this area grew rapidly. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) has for years been pressing this question of brucellosis. The Government cannot say that they have not been warned, and that they have not been told that something further should be done.
On a previous Clause in which the Government were defeated in Committee, the Minister referred to the defeat as a snap vote, but Clause 100, which Amendment No. 54 will destroy, was inserted at about 11.45 a.m. I do not put that down to the slackness of hon. Members opposite, or to their appetite for more congenial business, but hon. Gentlemen who were absent were in favour of the new Clause, and I had hoped that some of them would have come forward to say so tonight.
May I ask about the payments which will be made under the Clause as outlined in the White Paper?
I understand that 37s. 6d. is to be paid for a beef cow and that the payment for


a dairy cow will work out at about £5. Some of my farming friends have said that this seemed to be unbalanced and that the beef herds would come off much worse. I hope that the Minister will comment on this. I want to be clear whether all the followers in, say, the beef herd will receive a payment, even calf heifers. Or is it only to the heifer when she has actually calved and become a cow?
If all the followers are to receive this headage payment it makes things more even for the beef herd as against the dairy herd. If the Minister had put a little bit more money into this scheme and started one area eradication scheme

with compulsory slaughter and full compensation, East Anglia would have been an easy area to begin with. I do not say that it is the worst area; it is probably the best area, with the lowest amount of brucellosis. Herds are far more dispersed, the cow population is not nearly so great in the Eastern Counties and this would have been an easy area, with small compensation. It would have been a start to encourage the whole scheme. I sincerely hope that the Minister will think about this again over the next 12 months and see whether he can start something which will put an end to this horrible disease once and for all within the next five years.

Sir Robert Grant-Ferris: We ought to get this matter into perspective. I am sure that the Minister has fought our battle for us in the terms which we are now fighting it with him. The trouble is that Cabinet responsibility is such that he has to speak with the voice of the Treasury and the Government. I am sure that he has fought for exactly the sort of things that we are asking him now. It should be clearly understood that, whatever he says, in his heart he knows that what hon. Members are asking for is the right thing. We have eradicated tuberculosis and we did that with a policy of proper incentives to milk producers. I was a milk producer at the time and we received something like 4d. a gallon. We got rid of that disease.
We are only fiddling with this job now. The House must understand that it is because of Cabinet responsibility that we are up against a parsimonious Treasury which does not understand what an essential matter this is, vital to the health of the country. The arguments put forward tonight should be put into force without delay.
Would the Minister say a word about the successful conversations which he and his Department have had with auctioneers with regard to the housing of brucella-free cattle at yards, and other matters which are likely to be brought into legal force in an Order expected to be brought in about 1st June?

Mr. Hazell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making funds available for the eradication of brucellosis. The financial inducements set out in the Price Review will be helpful. I agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that Norfolk is one of the best areas for experimentation in the eradication of this disease, for the reasons that he mentioned. The number of cow herds in the area is relatively small in relation to the rest of the country. It is also an area remote from the rest of the country. These two factors combined suggest that Norfolk would be a first-class area for the development of a pilot scheme.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that more funds should be made available than my right hon. Friend

has provided in the Price Review. I thought that the Opposition were against public money being spent on agriculture. I have tried to understand their policy, though it is difficult to follow, and it seems to point to the view that British agriculture should depend almost entirely on its own resources. For hon. Gentlemen opposite to ask for more money than that which is provided for in the Price Review, however commendable the purpose might be, is to contradict their general argument about support for agriculture as a whole——

Mr. Peter Mills: Mr. Peter Mills rose——

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Hazell: No, I will not give way. I intend to make only a few brief remarks. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making provision in the Price Review as the first step towards the eradication of a disease about which everyone engaged in agriculture is concerned and wants to see removed as soon as possible. I hope that the industry will take advantage of the opportunities now afforded by the additional funds being made available for the purpose, and that we may see a pilot scheme started in Norfolk which will spread throughout the country and remove the disease for ever, as tuberculosis was removed a few years ago.

Mr. Peter Mills: I must answer the hon. Gentleman's accusation. He is extremely shortsighted. He does not realise that, by spending a little, one can gain a lot of money, and the amount which would be gained through an eradication scheme in terms of extra calves and milk would be great. A Tory Government would spend a bit of money in order to get a lot more in return.

Mr. Hazell: But that is not contained in the official policy of the Opposition, whereas my right hon. Friend is making definite allowances for the purpose of eradicating the disease.

Mr. Mills: I was prepared to give way, though the hon. Gentleman refused to give way to me. But I think that I have made my point. It is clear that an investment in an eradication scheme by whatever Government are in power will produce first-class results. The hon.
Gentleman failed to make that point, and it is worth making.
The disease is a very serious one. It is serious to agriculture and to the consumer, and it is very widespread. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is right when he says that it is far more widespread than the Government or any other body are prepared to admit. The more one studies it, the more one realises the problems. The veterinary profession knows only too well how difficult it is to eradicate the disease.
The Minister referred to the Clause providing a bonus, but subsection (4) says that the payments
shall be treated as production grants …".
I think that "production grant" is a better term than "bonus". "Production" implies someone doing something about it, rather than receiving a gift or bonus.
I await with interest the details of the scheme which have been promised. I hope that they come forward fairly soon, so that we can clear up many people's fears and explain to the agricultural community what the Government intend to do. I therefore hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister that these details will be given as quickly as possible so that we can make a careful study of the scheme and put it into operation.
I believe that much could be learned from the tuberculosis eradication scheme. On the whole, that scheme worked very well. If we make the progress with this scheme that we made with the tuberculosis scheme it will be of great benefit to agriculture and to the consumer. After the steps which have been taken on a voluntary basis, it will be difficult to continue eradication with the hard core of farms which remain unless we use slightly tougher measures. The new Clause lacks punch. I believe that more could be done, though I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking.
I believe that compensation is vital. We have seen with other diseases—for example, swine fever—that, as soon as compensation is paid to farmers, they seem to disappear overnight. I am not saying that that would happen with brucellosis. But it is extraordinary how

quickly swine fever cleared up. I am sure that compensation helped considerably.
We have not heard anything tonight about branding of reactors. I know that this is a difficult subject, but we must mark or brand these animals. Otherwise, they may find their way back into the open market. I know the difficulties only too well, but I think that some way could be found to ensure that these animals were branded.
I welcome subsection (3) which refers to dealing with this matter on an area basis. I am sure that this is the right way to start. It is important to get one area cleaned up as a source of replacement for other areas.
I notice that the Milk Marketing Board will have to carry out the scheme in its application to dairy herds. Will the Milk Marketing Board be compensated for the costs that accrue through the scheme? Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer that when he winds up the debate. It will obviously be paid by the Government, because line 16 states that payments
shall be paid to the board".
Will the board also be paid for collecting it, or is this part of the burden which it will have to bear? How will it be paid? Will it be paid as a production grant clearly shown on the milk cheque? I think that that would be the best way of doing it.
I welcome any step towards the eradication of this beastly disease. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, with an energetic Government working on it, we shall see the complete eradication of this disease which is doing so much harm to the dairy industry and to quite a few consumers.

Mr. James Davidson: I sometimes feel that this side of the House is a little prone to exaggeration, but on this subject there has been none. I felt in complete accord with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in what he said and in the steps which he recommended.
At a party in my constituency I asked the oldest British Legionnaire present to what he attributed his long health and vitality. He replied, "Man, I have never touched a drop of milk since the day


I was weaned." Despite that, I stress the point made twice already that, although a great deal of research has been done into brucellosis in the North-East of Scotland, that area is no worse than most other areas of the United Kingdom. The reply to the Question which I put to the Minister not long ago supports the point made by the hon. Gentleman that East Anglia is perhaps the area of the United Kingdom which is most clear of the disease. I shall not mention the worst area, but it is not Scotland. The North-East is probably about average. I welcome any legislation which gives enabling powers to tackle this disease.

Mr. Kitson: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he knows the best and worst areas for this disease. As there has not been a survey for a number of years on a herd to herd basis, can the hon. Gentleman explain how he has those figures?

Mr. Davidson: All I can say is that I put down a Question and received a reply, which was not very specific, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better direct his question to the Minister rather than to me.

Mr. Kitson: Mr. Kitson rose——

Mr. Davidson: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. It is not a riddle. If he reads HANSARD he will see the reply which I received, and then he will know as much about it as I do.
One or two suggestions have been made about how this problem might have been tackled with a little more energy and urgency. I was not a little surprised to hear from the Conservatives a suggestion that reactors should be branded. The cold branding of reactors might be one way of ensuring that reactors to brucellosis are not bought inadvertently in the market, which is what is happening at the moment.
Perhaps I might tell the House about a typical case which came to my notice the other day. A neighbouring farmer rang me up. He had sold a good dairy bull, which was a reactor, to the Farrow Cow Ring in Aberdeen, where there are no holds barred, and no guarantees, and anybody who buys a beast there knows that he is getting one that has something

wrong with it. The bull was bought by a dealer, who resold it for a great deal more than he paid to the farmer, who had intended it to go for slaughter. The farmer was surprised when he was rung up by the man who had bought the bull and asked for a licence for it. He asked me what he should do about it. My advice was not to pass on the licence under any circumstances. What he finally did was up to him. I did not ascertain that.
The incentives offered through the Price Review are most welcome in the initiation of a voluntary scheme. I prefer the Clause in the Bill to the new Clause, with one exception, and I take the point made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. If there is 100 per cent. compensation, this will make it profitable for people to buy up reactors, and this is the wrong sort of incentive. I am all for eradication and the payment of compensation, but 100 per cent. compensation is totally unrealistic.
What will happen in the interim period until this eradication and compensation scheme gets going on an area basis? What will happen to the reactors that are thrown out if there is no way in which other farmers can recognise them? Surely there should be a prohibition on the sale of reactors except for slaughter? Or at least they should be marked in some way so that those who purchase them can recognise them.
Any steps which forward the fight to eradicate this dangerous disease are most welcome, but the Clause in the Bill is preferable to the new Clause.

Sir David Renton: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down——

Mr. Davidson: I have sat down.

Sir D. Renton: In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about attempting to eradicate the disease, would he agree that an incentive to reporting the disease in any case is the best hope of eradication? Would he not agree that the best incentive to reporting is full compensation?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Wiggin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) for his kind remarks. It has been an interesting experience for me to propose Clause 100. There is no


truth in the rumour that my friends are now referring to me as "Bruce". But the credit for this move on this side of the House must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) who has pursued this matter for many years. It was due to his assiduous attention to duty that we were able to pursue this matter in Committee, and to have Clause 100 added to the Bill. I am glad that the Government have seen fit to take the hint and have introduced their own Clause, although the criticisms levelled at Clause 100 are not entirely valid.
Nothing in the new Clause except the starting date could not have been adequately dealt with by our Clause. The then Minister of Agriculture, now Leader of the House, said in July, 1966, in referring to a scheme to eradicate brucellosis, that the Government intended to start "as soon as possible". That phrase has meant 3¾ years, which is not untypical of the way in which the Government attend to matters of this urgency.
I dealt at length in Committee with the iniquities and difficulties of this disease. I do not need to go into details: the large attendance at this debate shows how well informed my hon. Friends are on the subject. But, beside the effect on animals, nearly 1,000 human beings a year, according to the British Medical Journal, are infected with brucellosis. One can only hope that the Government have been influenced by humanitarian considerations as well.
I welcome the proposal to increase the price for milk from brucella-free herds. I said in Committee:
The payment of a bonus on milk from brucella-tree herds is an obvious inducement and, indeed, may well become part of any scheme, as it did with tuberculosis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B; 10th March, 1970, c. 1098].
Many of my farmer friends have asked how much the grant will bring. The answer seems to be about £4 or £5. If full compensation is not to be paid, even now it will be costly for any dairy farmer to eradicate the disease, particularly if it is at the 20 or 30 per cent. level which is freely eradicated throughout the country. For those with beef herds, the situation will be much worse.
One can only press the Minister to reconsider this figure as soon as possible,

but his decision not to pay 100 per cent. compensation, which is another thing that they have taken out of the Clause, seems strange. The argument that people can buy reactors and sell them at a profit surely holds water only if the Ministry's valuers are not up to their job. When foot-and-mouth disease was raging in my area, the Ministry was very hot on any valuer who paid a price even slightly above market value for cows being slaughtered. It is amazing to suggest that a profitable operation could be conducted in reactors.
This will be a pretty complicated business. I hope that the Government, in any scheme they introduce, will take steps to stop cattle which have been aborted in the previous two or three months, are excreting and highly infectious, from being placed in any place or market. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) referred to a market in Scotland. It is not my experience of well conducted cattle auctions in England that things are quite as haphazard as he would make out.

Mr. James Davidson: Mr. James Davidson rose——

Mr. Wiggin: I will just finish. Throughout the whole of this Bill, on which we have slogged for many months, I cannot recall any instance of an Opposition suggestion being taken up by the Government, except possibly in relation to this new Clause. Even here, it seems that they have missed out two or three most important features. I hope that we shall be able to carry the sub-Amendments tonight.

Mr. John Nott: I believe that I have in my constituency the very first area in the United Kingdom which was declared brucellosis-free—the Isles of Scilly, which is noted for many admirable things. For this reason, and because my constituency has very intensive dairy production, I want to take up a little time on this subject, although I have not the practical knowledge of the subject that is displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). However, a member of my family who lives in his constituency in Devonshire contracted the disease, and I know that it is most dangerous and distressing, not only for those who contract it but for the farmers who find it on their farms.
I want to convey to the House some of the comments made to me during the weekend in my constituency following the Price Review. I am not in a position to know whether my farmers' reactions are fair in every respect, but their claim is that the new 1¼d. per gallon for brucellosis-free herds is likely to be less of an incentive to farmers to bring new herds into this condition than the old system. My farmers are saying this widely. They say that the old arrangement, whereby they had accredited herds and full compensation, was better than what is now proposed. They say that they do not think that anyone will find it worth while to get his herd accredited when he will get no compensation—or at least, no compensation figure has yet been announced—for reactors.
I understand that the Minister is not announcing tonight what the compensation is to be under the new scheme. But it is what farmers want to know. They say that, when the old T.B. scheme came in years ago, there was 4d. a gallon and 75 per cent. compensation for reactors. The feeling is that, until a full compensation figure is available, the new scheme will not provide the incentive necessary to eradicate this disease. There is great concern in the West Country about brucellosis and there seems to be the feeling that 1¼d. per gallon on milk will be inadequate to bring many more herds into a brucellosis-free category when no announcement has been made of what the compensation figure is to be. I repeat what my farmers have told me. They say they must know what the compensation figure is to be and hope that it will be full compensation and that such a scheme will be introduced soon.

Mr. Hooson: Has the Ministry estimated how long it will take to eradicate brucellosis under this scheme? I imagine that before a Department introduces a scheme of this kind, by Amendment, it makes an estimate, based on the figures available to it, of how long the task will take.
We are discussing a national problem. I am convinced that in parts of the country the majority of cows in auction marts are carriers of brucellosis. This was illustrated to me by a story I heard from a veterinary surgeon last week. A hill farmer had wistfully said, "That

cow over there is the only sound one in the herd. She brought her calf properly while the rest aborted, and she is the only one I have bought in the last five years". The point of the story is that that cow was the carrier. She had aborted previously and did not abort on the last occasion, but she had carried the disease to the whole herd.
Many farmers could repeat that story, perhaps not to the same degree. There was brucellosis in my herd some years ago, and it was carried by a cow that I had obtained from outside. Unfortunately, few farmers will admit to having, or having had, the disease in their herds. The problem facing the country is much greater than anybody will admit publicly, and that includes the Minister. It is important, therefore, to know how long the Ministry estimates it will take to eradicate brucellosis under this scheme.
From the point of view of my area, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, certainly for hill farmers, the incentive of 37s. 6d. per cow for a brucellosis-free beef herd is not a sufficient incentive. At that money, a farmer with a herd of, say, 50 cows will get about £93, which is not the price of one cow. If farmers are to have brucellosis-free herds, they need a greater incentive.
The only real eradication method is to go for an area eradication scheme, with adequate compensation, thereby clearing the disease area by area. There is no other way but for the Ministry to get tough with farmers over this.

Mr. Kitson: I will not detain the House, since in the last six years I have said virtually everything to hon. Members about brucellosis that could be said, except that I am extremely disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's attitude in rejecting one Clause and replacing it with the proposed new Clause.
Only six days before the Price Review I said in Committee upstairs:
Many of us think that if there is not to be a compulsory slaughter system, and if the Government do not intend to accept the Clause, the Government may have other things in mind. What could they do? I suppose that there is the possibility of giving a premium payment for brucella-free milk".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 12th March, 1970; c. 1109–10.]
I was delighted to see that, within six days of making that statement, the right hon. Gentleman acted on my suggestion.
How much of the £5 million incentive will go to Northern Ireland? The eradication scheme in Ulster is nearly complete. If a large percentage of this premium is to be paid to Northern Ireland, what percentage will that be of the total figure and how has the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the sum of £5 million for a full year? If there are only 300,000 brucella-free or accredited dairy cows in the country producing about 800 gallons of milk each, how will the cost be £5 million a year? I hope that the Minister will explain.
We on this side are extremely disappointed that the new Clause will not bring forward the brucellosis eradication scheme as quickly as we would like, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to press for area eradication, and that we shall have a scheme within the next year.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Godber: We have had a very interesting and constructive debate. We are accustomed in agricultural debates to having a very scant attendance on the other side of the House, but I am surprised that when we are considering a Clause which deals not only with agricultural matters but the health of the nation hon. Members opposite have not shown greater interest. However, the discussion has shown a unanimity of view which I hope will be of some encouragement to the Minister to do better than he now proposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) moved in Committee a new Clause on the subject which, on a Division, was added to the Bill. We thought it a very good Clause for the eradication of brucellosis. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Mr. Kitson), who for more than six years has consistently campaigned for action. There has been a good deal of pressure. We all know that the previous Minister of Agriculture claimed, when himself in Opposition, that he would do a lot in this direction, but it has been left to his successor to take action. We are glad that he has done so.
Does the Clause enable the right hon. Gentleman to provide, if he is so minded, not only for area eradication but for full compensation for the slaughter or re-

actors? Subsection (1) could possibly be interpreted as giving him this power, but the House would like a clear assurance that this is the case.
As to the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments about compensation—and rather odd arguments some of us found them—we strongly recommend acceptance of our Amendment (h), which faces the problem of compensation in such a way as not to provide a specific inducement for the sort of nefarious conduct of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, but does provide sufficient compensation to bring about the results we all want to see.
We do not think that this new Clause is so good as our own, but it marks some move towards a measure on which there seems to be complete unanimity of view. The point that rightly worries my hon. Friends relates to what is to happen to reactors in the absence of compensation payment. Will the Minister face this problem? If he does not, there is the danger of spreading reactors more widely. He should also decide the question of marking reactors or of forbidding their sale except for slaughter, if he is not prepared to go to the extent of full compensation.
The real nub of the problem is when we are to get a start on area eradication. The Minister, I understand, has said that he thinks that he could start some time next year, but I think that he could start even this year if he were willing to choose his areas carefully and, perhaps, start on a small scale. The important thing is to make a start on which one could build, so getting a nucleus of herds in an area where one could have every confidence that the disease was being successfully combated.
The case has been made so forcibly by my hon. Friends that I do not think it necessary for me to emphasise any more the various points which have been made. We all believe that eradication of brucellosis should be carried out, but it should carry with it some provision for compensation on slaughter. We should proceed to area eradication at the earliest moment. We hope that the Minister will give an answer which will show his concern and that he will do all he can in the very near future not only to provide for what he has suggested in the Clause, but to go further in the way my hon.
Friends have so forcibly represented to him.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We have had a most important debate on a subject which is of interest not only to the House and the agricultural industry, but to the nation at large. As hon. Members have said, there is growing concern about this disease among members of the public generally. I was impressed by what I thought was a constructive debate in another place on this subject a few weeks ago.
I am grateful to hon. Members who have extended a welcome to our scheme. Some were more grudging than others. I was charged by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) with having no sense of determination. It ill becomes him, or any other hon. Member opposite, to level that kind of charge at the Government, because they were remarkable for doing nothing during the whole 13 years when they were in office. Of course, they have far more determination, punch and drive in Opposition than they had in Government.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) was affected by this disease when he was 16 years of age. He obviously knows a great deal about it and is much concerned about it. I must protest at the use of the term "scandalous delay" in relation to the Government. We have acted constructively and rightly. I join with the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) in congratulating the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) on his persistence in seeking Government action in relation to this disease. I have been looking at his record on this matter in the years before the present Government came to office. I ask the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) to do a little careful homework and research in the Library to see the record of his party when in Government. Then, perhaps, he will be a little less harsh in criticism of the present Government.
We have the Questions which the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks quite properly put to his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. The hon. Member initiated a debate on a Friday on brucellosis and he received no assurances from the agri-

cultural Ministers of that time. I have before me the Questions he asked. On 11th May, 1964, the hon. Member asked Mr. Soames a Question on this subject. The last words spoken by the hon. Member on that occasion were:
I beg to give notice that, owing to the importance of this matter, I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 7.]
So much for the performance of the Opposition when they had the opportunity to do something about this problem. I am sorry that I have had to say this, because I hoped the House could have dealt with an important matter of public health and animal health in a non-partisan way, but once again I have been disappointed.

Mr. Godber: It is the Minister who has imported the partisan element. Will he now face up to the position that we when in office did a major job in the eradication of tuberculosis? Is he saying that the Ministry vets could have dealt with this at the same time as dealing with tuberculosis? If he is not saying that, the whole of his argument falls.

Mr. Hughes: Of course I agree that the Tory Party when it was in power, the Labour Party when in power, and Mr. Tom Williams in particular, paved the way for the eradication of tuberculosis. This was an effort which was supported in a non-partisan way by hon. Members on this side, as I well remember. But after the eradication of tuberculosis, there were years in which the Tory Government could have done far more to secure the eradication of brucellosis than they did.
Nor would I have brought these facts to the fore in this debate had not so many hon. Members made party political points about this. Credit for action must be given to this Government. One would think that brucellosis did not exist under the Tory Government. We introduced the first scheme for accredited herds. We are introducing the first eradication areas to be set up next year. We have also introduced this effective scheme.

Mr. Kitson: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted criticisms that I made of the Conservative Government and of the Labour Government. I notice that he did not quote these words used by the present Leader of the House when he


spoke as Shadow Minister of Agriculture—he has since been Minister of Agriculture—in the brucellosis debate on 19th June, 1964; the right hon. Gentleman said—c. 1724—that the Government must get on with the job of eradicating brucellosis. I hope that the Minister will add that to his list of quotations.

Mr. Hughes: That is precisely what we have done. I was prepared to agree with the right hon. Member for Grantham that good work had been done by the Conservative Government in the eradication of tuberculosis. What no hon. Member opposite has done today is to give credit for the difficulties that the Labour Government have encountered—in particular, the difficulties encountered by my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House in combating the foot-and-mouth epidemic. Hon. Members opposite would agree with my proposition in private. I am sorry that when on their feet in the House they are not prepared to make the point.
A number of important points have been made by hon. Members. They have asked me to reply to their questions, and I will seek to do so. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West raised the question of milk/beef incentives. The 1¼d. per gallon is equivalent to something either side of £4 per dairy cow, depending upon yield. The hon. Gentleman asked why only £1 17s. 6d. was paid on the beef animal. This relativity has been carefully calculated to take account of the disease risk considerations. For example, I can name three. First, experience here and in Northern Ireland shows that dairy herds are far more vulnerable to brucellosis. Second, dairy replacements cost more. Third, dairy enterprises lose more income when reactors have to be culled and movement restrictions applied. Our aim is a "neutral" relativity which will not influence milk/beef production or profitability.
The hon. Member raised the question of the cost of eradication. This can be assessed more realistically when we have the experience of next year's compulsory eradication projects. There is no evidence at present that the weight of infection is on the increase. One or two hon. Members raised this quite properly as a matter about which they are apprehensive. In fact, there is no evidence of that kind. All our evidence

is that the national incidence of brucellosis remains substantially unchanged. There are some local variations, for example there is somewhat less in East Anglia and more in the West Midlands.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Stodart: We often hear about the Northern Ireland experience, and it is said that it would not cost us here the figure of £40 million which is cited. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what causes people to say that it need cost us only £10 million, in the light of the Northern Ireland experience?

Mr. Hughes: I cannot give a precise answer to that question now. We have learned a great deal from the Northern Ireland experience. I shall try to provide an answer before the end of the debate, and I take the point. If necessary, when the Bill comes back to the House, we may be able to say something about it.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks about the basis of calculation of the £5 million in the first full year, 1971–72. The calculation takes account of the expected increase in new applications following the introduction of the incentive scheme. For this year, 1970, basing ourselves on herds already accredited and in the immediate pipeline, we estimate that the cost will be just over £3 million.
We had an interesting speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, West, who dealt with this problem when he was a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture. He asked about insurance. It is difficult to see why private insurance against reinfection need be excessive. We already have nearly 700,000 accredited cattle registered in Great Britain, of which barely 1,000 so far have had to be slaughtered because of reinfection in the herds concerned, and the net compensation paid, after deducting carcase value, has been less than £100,000. We must compare this with the £3 million incentives which we expect to pay this year and the £5 million next year. We should reserve judgment on this until the insurance companies put out their prospectuses. I know that the National Farmers Union is particularly interested in that point.
Next, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West, asked about compensation.
He will know that hitherto compensation is payable only at the final blood test or on reinfection, and it has been running at about £1¼ million a year. We know also—I repeat it—that the new incentives are worth about £5 million in a full year. Our aim is to attract clean or relatively clean herds which are not yet accredited, estimated at at least 20,000 to 30,000. Owners of more heavily affected herds may decide that they would do better to await compulsory eradication. That may be their view, and I think that it could be right.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and others raised the question of compulsory area eradication, that is, the question of limited projects. As regards choice of areas—obviously, this has not yet been decided—I can tell hon. Members that preliminary discussions are already in progress with interested organisations, including the National Farmers Union and the British Veterinary Association.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham and other hon. Members mentioned the question of timetable, and I agree that this is important. It depends on the size of selected areas. We do not want projects to drag on, for two reasons. First, movement restrictions, when they begin, are bound to be irksome to farmers. We do not, therefore, want a premature start. That, I think, is a strong argument. Second, project experience will be needed for main area eradication programmes which will follow.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, asked about discussions with interested parties. The problem of marketed reactors is being discussed with interests concerned, including the National Farmers Union and the auctioneers' institute, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member. I cannot pre-judge the outcome tonight.
In the meantime, there are three features of the new incentive scheme for owners who participate. First, all tests will be undertaken free of charge by the agricultural departments. Second, all reactors must go to the abbatoir. Third, payment is by healthy animals, not reactors. This should encourage prudent buying.
We had a constructive short speech by the hon. Member for North Angus

and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), who talked about Northern Ireland. Arrangements already exist for accepting Northern Ireland stock into the scheme, subject to satisfactory transit arrangement.
The hon. Members for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) asked about branding of reactors. Under the incentive scheme just announced reactors must go to the abbatoir. I note that hon. Members are in favour of the branding of reactors, and I take the point.
The hon. Member for Torrington also raised the question of payments through the Milk Marketing Board. The board's reasonable costs will be met. I would draw attention to lines 15 to 17 of the Clause. The actual payment methods are being discussed with the Board, and I hope that we can quickly reach a satisfactory conclusion.
I want to say a word on the third Amendment——

Sir R. Grant-Ferris: I think that the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently missed me out. I asked a specific question about the agreement his Ministry had come to with auctioneers about the housing of brucella-free cattle at markets, and other attendant questions, and whether he intended to bring in an Order he is likely to introduce at the beginning of June.

Mr. Hughes: Certainly we shall come to a conclusion on the matter. I said we are having discussions with the auctioneers' institutes on these subjects. I shall make an announcement as soon as I can.
I want now to deal with the third Amendment. I do not question its objective, but I hope that hon. Members who tabled it will accept that it would not serve the purpose they intend. Section 7 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950 creates two distinct types of offences. The first, under subsection (1), consists of making false statements to obtain money under Sections 3 and 4. The Act applies only to Great Britain, whereas there is provision for payments under the new Clause to extend to Northern Ireland. The new incentive premiums will be payable there. It follows that any machinery for creating offences should equally be capable of application throughout the United Kingdom.
The second type of offence is under subsection (2) and concerns obstructing or impeding inspections connected with schemes for payments under Sections 3 and 4. Here again the starting point is forms of payment which would be applicable only in Great Britain. As I have explained, if it is necessary to create offences here, these, like the payments, should be capable of application throughout the United Kingdom. We shall look at this and if necessary introduce an appropriate provision in another place.
I would therefore commend the proposals in the Clause to the House. The farming industry and the country at large have been very anxious that we should clear the country of this disease as soon as possible. I am sure that that is an objective that all Members on both sides will share, and that it will attract support from outside the House. If there have been criticisms—and sometimes there have been fairly emotional criticisms—I think that they have been made in the heat of the moment and have not been directed at the general desire that we should do all we can to eradicate the disease.
The farming community is concerned to see its stock free from this disease and it looks forward, as we all do, to the day when eradication of yet another major disease is accomplished. It is only

in this way that we can finally remove the real anxieties that are abroad about the associated risks to human health, especially in the rural areas—by drawing in an increasing number of herds which are free or nearly free from this disease. The new incentives will increase the tempo of the campaign to shorten the road to final eradication. We now have new initiatives to combat brucellosis, new opportunities for the industry to grasp, and the prize is total freedom from what is an insidious disease.

I hope that the House will lend its full support and encouragement to this new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment (h) proposed to the proposed Clause: After subsection (1) insert:
(b) pay such sum as represents the difference between the price fetched by an infected animal when slaughtered and that which it is estimated by one of his inspectors that the animal would have fetched, if sold in the open market in sound condition.—[Mr. Godber.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 177.

Division No. 89.]
AYES
[11.25 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clark, Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clegg, Walter
Hawkins, Paul


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Corfield, F. V.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Astor, John
Crouch, David
Higgins, Terence L.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Crowder, F. P.
Hiley, Joseph


Awdry, Daniel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dance, James
Holland, Philip


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hooson, Emlyn


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dean, Paul
Hordern, Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Got. &amp; Fhm)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hornby, Richard


Bessell, Petar
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)


Biffen, John
Eden, Sir John
Hunt, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Black, Sir Cyril
Emery, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Blaker, Peter
Errington, Sir Eric
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fisher, Nigel
Jopling, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fortescue, Tim
Kimball Marcus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Foster, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Fry, Peter
King, Tom


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kitson, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lane, David


Burden, F. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Gower, Raymond
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Carlisle, Mark
Grant, Anthony
MacArthur, Ian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Mackenzie, Aiasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Chataway, Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Chichester Clark, R.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Michael




Marten, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walters, Dennis


Maxwell-Hyslop, R J.
Royle, Anthony
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Maydon, It.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mills, Straiten (Belfast, N.)
Sharples, Richard
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Miscampbel, Norman
Silvester, Frederick
Wiggin, Jerry


More, Jasper
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Speed, Keith
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mott-Radcly[...]e, Sir Charles
Stodart, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Worsley, Marcus


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tapsell, Peter
Wright, Esmond


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Younger, Hn. George


Pardoe, John
Temple, John M.



Prior, J. M. L.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pym, Francis
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Hector Monro and


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Waddington, David
Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Gregory, Arnold
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Neal, Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamling, William
Norwood, Christopher


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William
Oakes, Gordon


Barnes, Michael
Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Baxter, William
Haseldine, Norman
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Hattersley, Roy
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hazell, Bert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Henig, Stanley
Palmer, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hobden, Dennis
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boston, Terence
Horner, John
Pentland, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howie, W.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rees, Merlyn


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richard, Ivor


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hynd, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rowlands, E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coe, Denis
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Conlan, Bernard
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Lee, John (Reading)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lomas, Kenneth
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tinn, James


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McCann, John
Urwin, T. W.


Dickens, James
MacColl, James
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Macdonald, A. H.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McElhone, Frank
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Wallace, George


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ellis, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


English, Michael
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ennals, David
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Whitlock, William


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)



Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islington, E.)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Gardner, Tony
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Neil McBride and


Golding, John
Molloy, William
Mr. Ray Dobson.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

SAVING FOR ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS

(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 99 of this Act, subsections (2) and (3) thereof shall not have effect in relation to any zoological gardens in respect of which there is in force a certificate of exemption granted under subsection (2) of this section.
(2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection the Minister may grant a certificate of exemption in respect of any zoological gardens as to which he is satisfied that it is in the public interest they should be exempted from the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of the said section 99.
(3) A certificate granted under the foregoing subsection may be withdrawn by the Minister at any time but save as aforesaid shall remain in force for 12 months.

(4) In this section—
(a) the expression 'the Minister' means, in relation to England and Wales, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State; and
(b) the expression 'zoological gardens' means any place in which rare or exotic species of animals are confined for scientific or educational purposes or for the purpose of being viewed by members of the public and includes any quarantine station attached to or carried on in conjunction therewith.

(5) This section shall not apply to Northern Ireland.—[Mr. Temple.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I suppose that on an Agriculture Bill the unexpected is the normal! One might wonder how the fascinating subject of exotic fauna have crept into this Bill. The reason for the new Clause is that in Clause 99 the Government are taking reserve powers to deal with ring vaccination against foot and mouth disease and if a zoo is in the right it will be subject to the vaccination procedures.
The Northumberland Committee, which did such an excellent job in reporting on the problems of foot-and-mouth disease, did not cover the subject of rare and exotic animals. It merely dealt with the situation concerning cattle, sheep and pigs. There are, however, approximately 24 species of even-toed ulgulata. I looked up the plural of an ungulate and found, to my surprise, that it was ungulata. There are in our country only three domesticated species of ungulata, namely, cattle, sheep and pigs, and deer are found wild. Other than that, there are approxi-

mately 20 different species of these rare fauna which are normally found in zoos and private collections.
Even within species in zoos, there are often up to 20 different types of animal. I have with me a list of 180 rare and exotic animals all of which if they were found within the ring when a foot-and-mouth outbreak occurred would have to be vaccinated. This would cause extremely difficult problems. Species range from giraffes at one end of the scale down to small bucks at the other end of the scale.
I do not think that anybody quite knows what to do with hippopotami, because there is, I understand, doubt whether they are susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease. I make that point to indicate that I am dealing in the new Clause with an extremely difficult and complicated subject, but I hope to make the general drift of my argument reasonably clear.
In Committee, in a speech on 3rd March, I asked the Government a number of questions, and I outlined some of the special situations which would obtain for zoological gardens and asked the Government to let me know their thinking.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave me the Government's thinking in three lines when he said:
If there is an outbreak with a zoo in the middle of it, or a zoo in the ring, the zoo animals will have to be vaccinated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 3rd March. 1970; c. 979.]
There were no "ifs" and "buts". Susceptible animals in the ring would have to be vaccinated.
I do not know whether the Government then appreciated the extreme difficulties which this vaccination would present. During the last few days I have had the benefit of expert advice about these rather delicate animals, and I have had fairly widespread support for the Clause. I will explain the Clause and then give the supporting reasons for it.
Those responsible for any zoo or collection of rare animals could at their discretion apply to the Minister for a certificate of exemption for their animals. I hit upon this scheme because I successfully moved an Amendment to another Bill with the object of giving what might


be called a certificate in certain circumstances. This was the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill. I invented this term and it was adopted by the then Conservative Government. Locations were described as "certificated locations".
Zoos which applied for and were granted certificates at the discretion of the Minister would be called, for the purpose of dealing with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, certificated zoos. The exemption certificate could be withdrawn at any time at the discretion of the Minister. I am therefore suggesting what would be an extremely flexible approach to deal with what I believe to be an extremely difficult situation.
The reasons for the Clause are twofold. First, there are the scientific reasons. I have had the great good fortune of being able to discuss the matter with Professor J. Q. L. King, of the University of Liverpool, who is a Ph.D., M.V.Sc., B.Sc.(Ag.), M.R.C.V.S. and Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the North of England Zoological Society. I have also put a number of Questions to the Parliamentary Secretary about the special dose rates which would apply to these rare animals. I was told that the dosage of the foot-and-mouth vaccine was measured by species. That surprised me, for I had thought that it would be done by live weight.
On 16th March, in a Parliamentary answer to me, the Parliamentary Secretary confirmed that no experimental work had been done on any species other than cattle, sheep and pigs. We are therefore working very much in the dark, because no work has been done on these rare and exotic species. However, we know from the Danish experience, about which I was told by one of my advisers recently returned from Denmark, that immunity for domestic animals is gained as a result of vaccination only after 10 days. Nobody knows what happens with exotic animals. With cattle and sheep, vaccination results in immunity for a matter of four months, but in pigs only for four weeks. This shows that there is a different reaction to the vaccination between species, and this is tremendously important.

11.45 p.m.

I turn now to dosage rates. I have said already that dosage is done by

species, and Professor King tells me that veterinary officers of the Ministry entering any zoo where rare specimens are kept would have great difficulty in knowing what dose rates to apply, and that if the wrong dosage was applied many animals would suffer severe shock or stress, if not death. In addition, nothing is known about the age at which vaccination should start. In cows and pigs, vaccination starts at a different age. In calves and sheep, vaccination starts after three months. In pigs, it starts after about six weeks. In these rare and exotic species, no one knows at what age one should start vaccinating the baby animals. Professor King tells me that, as far as he knows, no work has been done on these rare species, and he has emphasised to me that it would be very costly to carry out experimental work on all these exotic species, as it has been a very costly job to carry out experimental work in domesticated animals.

I turn now to the welfare and conservation reasons which I put forward. I have consulted Mr. George Mottershead, who is the only Britisher to have been president of the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens. It is a three-year appointment, and we in Chester are proud to have the only Britisher to be elected to this international post. He tells me how difficult it is to handle these wild animals. I am acquainted with the vaccination and inoculation of farm animals, and, whereas they are regularly caught and inoculated for all kinds of diseases, these rare animals are never caught, being shy and difficult to catch.

What happened at Chester Zoo in the 1967–68 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is interesting, in that the Ministtry's veterinary officers came to inspect the zoo to see whether any animals were suffering from foot-and-mouth. They inspected a water buck and an eland, both sturdy animals. Both died of fright. These animals are extremely timorous. There is a real danger in handling them, and they might suffer severe shock, if not death, due to being handled.

If one had to vaccinate the animals in extensive zoological gardens, one would have to use narcotic darts to catch them. Many of them have extremely fragile bone structures, so again the operation would be very difficult. In


putting forward these points, I am not overstating the case in any way. I am afraid that there might be a state of severe confusion and alarm among these timorous animals.

I want now to say a few words from a conservation point of view. One has to recollect that vaccinated animals are not allowed into this country at present. That is what I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say in Committee. There is no doubt that a number of these rare species are in danger of extinction. In the quarantine station attached to Chester Zoo there is a vicuna, one of the rarest species in the world, which is in definite danger of extinction.

It is a relatively common practice to move animals about for mating purposes. One reads of rare and exotic animals being flown from one country to another for planned matings because, when there are small colonies of these animals it is important to move them about for mating purposes in order to mix the blood. I make this point because, with the increasing facilities of air transport, I think that exchanges of these animals will grow, and it would be difficult to effect planned matings if animals were to be vaccinated.

We in this country are very proud of the rôle which we are playing in the conservation of rare species. I should not like to think that we were in any way taking the risk of prejudicing the perpetuation of rare species.

Within the new Clause I also include the quarantine stations attached to zoological gardens, of which there are not many. However, I was responsibile to quite an extent for the establishment of the quarantine station in which the vicuna, to which I referred, is now living. If vaccination was carried out in an animal quarantine station, there would be a risk of masking the infection against which the animal is being quarantined. This is a technical, though minor, issue; but it certainly needs thinking about.

Three times in recent years the Chester Zoo has been within an infected area. Fortunately, it has been closed and has escaped infection. Nevertheless, there is a real risk, if a zoo is in an area densely populated by animals, of its being in an infected area, and under Clause 99 the animals therein would have to be vaccinated.

I point out that no controller or director of a zoo would have to apply for a certificate of exemption. It would be at his option or in his judgment. The director would have to apply for a certificate only if he thought that the zoo was in a potentially dangerous area. If he deemed that the zoo was in an area of no danger—for example, Regents Park, which is many miles away from other animals—he would not apply and would not regard himself as needing a certificate of exemption. It is an optional application, and it is at the option of the Minister to grant such a certificate.

I do not believe that the Ministry's veterinary officers should be put in the invidious position of having to vaccinate without any detailed instructions about the dosage rates to be used. It would be a most unsatisfactory position for the veterinary profession.

It would be irresponsible of us tonight not to pay due regard to a Clause of this nature. We should have a real feeling for these rare and exotic species. I believe that the House would be well advised to accept the new Clause, which would give protection as an optional measure.

Sir John Foster: If the Government take the power to vaccinate the inhabitants of a zoo, first, they run the risk of killing many animals and, secondly, they would prevent the exchange of animals internationally. The Government must justify the necessity for this step. I submit that there is no need, on the assumption that a zoo is in an infected area, to vaccinate the inhabitants of that zoo.
I do not know whether the Minister can tell us of any animal, in a crowded zoo, which caught foot-and-mouth disease. I believe that that has not occurred. Even if it did turn out, which is unlikely, that an animal caught foot-and-mouth disease when it was incarcerated in a zoo, I think that that would be the ruin of the zoo, but it would not have been worth the risk of killing the animals or, as my hon. Friend said, of preventing these international exchanges. We have to consider the international aspect of the matter. Zoos exchange animals and information, and the wisdom or otherwise of measures taken in an English zoo will be noted by persons abroad.
My hon. Friend referred to his constituent who is head of the Association of Zoological Gardens. It was only a short time ago that the World Congress of Zoological Gardens was held in Chester, and I had the pleasure of knowing that a constituent of mine, Miss Russell Allen, was chairman of the conference. Although I am four or five miles from Chester at the nearest point, we take a great pride in the zoo there, and everybody is very interested in the policy adopted by the Government with regard to these zoological gardens.
The United Kingdom is very much to the fore in the care of these rare and foreign animals. I remember that during the war the late Lord Rothschild made his daughter, Dr. Rothschild, his animal executrix, and she was somewhat embarrassed all through the war by the docks at Southampton ringing up and saying, "Another couple of his Lordship's cassowaries have arrived." To use a Stock Exchange phrase, Lord Rothschild had bought cassowaries long. He bought cassowaries over the next 10 years, and two arrived every six months. It was rather typical of what happened in war time. These birds occupied valuable shipping space which might have been used to bring food and ammunition to this country, and then Dr. Rothschild had to look all over England to find a home for them. In ordinary circumstances they would have gone to Tring Park and been happy with the emus and gnus but they could not be accommodated there at that time.
I mention that to show that throughout we have been very interested in these foreign species. Our zoological faculties at the universities are strong, and it would put us out of the running in the zoological world if a shortsighted policy such as this were adopted by the Government. We expect from the Minister a justification for taking powers to inoculate or vaccinate foreign animals in zoos when there is no need at all for these powers.

12 midnight.

Mr. John Farr: I support my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). The answers which he has received to his probing questions in Committee and in the House show that the Government have absolutely no knowledge on this subject. No

one condemns them for that, but they would be condemned if they did not accept the new Clause. Even if they did not, they should delay for a couple of years the effect of the provisions relating to zoological gardens, until they have found the answers to some of the questions of my hon. Friend.
For instance, it is certain that there is knowledge abroad on this subject, although the Government apparently know of no research in this country on the dosage rates for different animals. If a year or two were allowed before the Clause applied to zoological gardens, this would enable meaningful research to take place here.
I emphasise what my hon. Friend said about this country being a reservoir for clean animals. It is a reservoir for clean pedigree stock and it is an exchange reservoir for exotic wild animals. People will not be so keen to have from us in future animals for mating purposes or to replenish their stock if they have been subject to vaccination for foot-and-mouth.
There is little risk of infection spreading to or from zoological gardens. Most of them are fairly well isolated from adjacent countryside by towns and pavements. I urge the Minister to think seriously about what my hon. Friend has said and at least to suspend the operation of this Clause to zoological gardens.

Sir Frederic Bennett: It will not be necessary for me to add much to what has been so ably said already, but I ask the Minister to take this matter seriously. All the history of animal conservation not just in this country is full of single mistakes which have proved irreparable. Again and again a species has disappeared from the face of the earth because someone thought that some small action did not matter. In this year of all years, when the whole world is beginning to realise how far we have gone towards the extinction of certain species, the Minister should take this suggestion seriously, even if he cannot accept the Clause. Otherwise, he may have a considerable responsibility to bear, and these decisions are irrecoverable.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) mentioned one distinguished gentleman who played a considerable part in introducing and maintaining species, and he deserves the thanks of the world. I can think of


another. There was a herd of deer, called Père David deer, supposed to be kept only by the Chinese Emperor, and they were the only ones of that species left in the world. When the Chinese Empire came to an end and the walls of the Emperor's palace were broken down, these deer escaped and every one was butchered. Only two or three were left—in the hands of the Duke of Bedford. From that small number, we in Britain at the moment have virtually the only herd of Père David deer left in the world. Foreign zoos, and the Red Chinese themselves, are trying to acquire some of these deer which used to live in China.
At that time, one mistake could have meant that one species disappeared from the face of the earth. I echo that the former Duke of Bedford put on the fence of his park at the time, "You may not like my politics, but please do not take it out on the deer." This was just at a time when people were throwing stones over the fence at these inoffensive animals. I ask the Minister not to take it out on these animals because I happen to be speaking from these benches.
I have had a little to do with the handling of small dear, both in East Africa and in this country. The scientists still do not know quite what it is that happens when one handles a deer. It is not just a matter of the animal dying from shock, as I saw to my infinite regret, when I took part in moving Chinese water deer from one part of a country to another for conservation purposes. They were treated with the utmost care but they nevertheless developed a painful form of paralysis of their hind limbs and had to be destroyed. Nothing had been done to them except handling but this induced a sense of shock and fear which resulted in the unhappy ending I have described.
At this time, if the hon. Gentleman insists on going ahead with the Bill as it stands, we shall be running considerable risks for no good reason. Anyone who knows Chester Zoo or any other better class zoo knows that the chance of spreading infection between the enclosures and from them is negligible. Most of the enclosures in such zoos have no contact between them. We still are waiting for the hon. Gentleman to say that he knows of a case which has taken place, but even if there has been one—and it would be very rare—presumably

protective measures were taken and presumably the zoo concerned was closed.
The hon. Gentleman may say that the new Clause would not comply with what he is trying to do but I am sure that my hon. Friend would be happy if some other method of achieving his objective were found. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that this is just a light-hearted exercise on our part. All of us who have stayed for this debate are thinking in serious terms in that this action might create an irrevocable situation from the point of view of getting rare species again in this country.
It will be no good the Government, if they persist in this course, coming back to the House, as they can in other cases, and saying "We made a mistake and we are sorry, so we shall relax the restriction". Once this has been done, there is no question of going back on it. I press the Minister in Conservation Year to realise that this is not just a light-hearted plea on our part but to take it seriously and see whether he cannot find some way of preventing the dangers. We do not even know yet what the effects of vaccination are on different species, and it may well be that it would cause the death of certain species. I ask him to treat this matter very seriously.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Have the Government been in touch with any national and international authorities and others with great knowledge of animal behaviour about this matter? I would be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman tell us whose advice has been taken and of the information given to the Government by authorities on this subject on what the effects of vaccination on these animals would be. I would also like to know why it is that this provision in Clause 99 was suddenly found to be so necessary. Unless there is a vital reason for introducing a provision of this kind, it should be dropped. Why has it suddenly been found necessary—I have not seen reports of these animals contracting foot-and-mouth disease—to take this step?
I fear that too many rules and regulations are imposed simply because somebody in Government says, "Nothing has been done on this subject before. Let us legislate on it". Hon. Members should oppose the introduction of legislation unless it can be shown that it is vital.
As my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) pointed out, many of the rare and exotic animals in zoos have been brought here at great expense. Important herds have been established. Some will be in danger of extinction—I can think of one herd of deer that probably will be—if we take arbitrary action to implement Clause 99.
Whenever I have clashed with the Minister over legislation affecting ponies and other animals he has been reasonable. He will accept that my hon. Friends and I have not remained here till this late hour merely to be unreasonable. We accept the dangers involved in the spread of diseases like foot-and-mouth, but we trust that he will be reasonable over this.
The provision says, in effect, that zoo owners shall make application for exemption from Clause 99, and not that the Minister shall exempt them. It gives the right hon. Gentleman discretion to use his judgment, having received advice from his officials and after taking account of the various circumstances of the zoo in question.
I can see nothing in our request with which the Minister can quarrel. It is a request, not a demand, for the Minister to put in the Bill words that would allow a future Minister to use his judgment, and act reasonably and in the best interests of agriculture and of the animals in zoos at the time in accordance with what he believed to be right. I hope that the Minister will either accept the Clause as it stands, or at least accept it in principle, and say that he is prepared to do something to implement it.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has spoken very persuasively, but I find the contents of his new Clause disturbing and I cannot give it the same wholehearted support as my hon. Friends do. I do not lag behind them in a desire to preserve, here or elsewhere, as many exotic animals as possible, but I question whether the Clause provides the right method.
My hon. Friends have rightly said that these very rare and exotic deer, and other types, are difficult to handle, which means that it is hard to know whether or not they have contracted the disease until they

are at death's door. In Derbyshire there is a very famous herd of ordinary deer, and during the recent foot-and-mouth epidemic it would have been excessively difficult to discover whether any of them had contracted the disease. If it had been found that one of them had gone down, it would have been too late to preserve the herd.
I share my hon. Friends' desire to preserve these various species, but I warn them of the danger of saying that in these zoos there shall be no vaccination, which is what the Clause seeks. It asks that the Minister shall be able to give a certificate of exemption from vaccination in these zoos.

Mr. Burden: At the Minister's discretion.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It would give the Minister discretion to grant a certificate of exemption. Lack of vaccination of these animals could mean their extinction. To say that foot-and-mouth disease cannot get into zoological gardens is to tempt fate too far. These places could be a base from which the disease could go out. No one knows how foot-and-mouth is carried. The success of my hon. Friends' arguments could mean the extinction of these particularly rare and exotic species.

Mr. Temple: Does my hon. Friend know whether or not dosage rates are prescribed for these various species?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was about to turn to that aspect. So far, I have been destructive in my criticism. There is already a fair amount of knowledge about the amount of vaccine that should be used on some species but, in addition, the Government, in conjunction with zoological gardens and university departments, should undertake research to determine minimum vaccine dosages. It is essential to get information from abroad concerning some of these exotic species. We should also put in hand immediately research to find what dosage is tolerable of these animals. There are the worries that I have, although I found the arguments of my hon. Friends very persuasive.

Mr. Mackie: I know the interest of the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in this subject. He raised it in


Committee and he has questioned me about it before. I am grateful to him for his remark about the Government through the Parliamentary Secretary, giving him some replies. I also compliment the hon. Member on the industry he has shown in research about animals. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) asked why this was necessary and suggested that the Government were doing it for the sake of doing it.

Mr. Burden: All Governments.

Mr. Mackie: I do not criticise hon. Members for not taking an interest in agriculture, but do they realise that in 1967–68 we had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which, in direct compensation, cost the country just under £30 million? In consequential losses an amount up to about £100 million has been quoted. Do they think that the Government should not do something to take precautions which we think necessary? The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who has been in the Department, appreciates this. He cast some doubt on the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out the loss that is occasioned if animals have foot-and-mouth disease. If exotic animals were given an injection and the handling of them caused them to die, would compensation be paid to their owners?

Mr. Mackie: No, consequential loss by vaccination—which is a different point altogether—would not be paid for. If an animal died because of vaccination, the value of that animal, but not the consequential loss would perhaps be paid for, but that is a different point altogether. Because of what happened in 1967–68 and following the Government committee report, we have taken the action of putting this provision into the Bill.
If this disease breaks out, animals have to be slaughtered. That protects not only other animals but the animals in the herd itself. This does not mean that I do not appreciate all that the hon. Member for the City of Chester said about the difficulties of catching delicate animals, but he knows that a tremendous number of them are cloven-hoofed animals and are susceptible to the disease. Coypus, hedgehogs and other animals are susceptible.
Several hon. Members have asked what research we have done and how much we know about this subject. The Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright is the world authority on foot-and-mouth disease, including vaccines for the disease. All the advice the institute can give is available to the Department. We are in touch with many other areas of research into the disease, including the Pan-American one at Rio de Janeiro. We will consider whether any extra research needs to be done and also look into the question of the amount of vaccine required to ensure that animals are not hurt should they have to be vaccinated.

Mr. Temple: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Animal Virus Research Institute is in touch with all these things, but he may have overlooked the fact that on 16th March, when I asked him what his Department had done in conjunction with other Departments in connection with experiments on animals other than cattle, sheep and pigs with inactivated vaccine, he said that no experiments had been conducted. This is the background to the Clause.

Mr. Mackie: That does not in any way invalidate what I have said, which was that Britain has the main research institute at Pirbright for foot and mouth. That institute is in contact with the work which is being done the world over. Its advice is available. I am prepared to tell the station that we should like as much information as we can get.
We will not rush about vaccinating animals for vaccinating's sake. Zoos are not often likely to be in the middle of an area heavily populated with cattle, sheep and pigs. If a zoo happened to be so situated, its animals would have to be vaccinated to prevent the spread of the disease. Many zoos are in urban areas and are as well isolated as we would wish. Naturally, we would look at the epidemiology of the disease before we rushed in to vaccinate.
The Clause is unnecessary because it appears to give a complete discretion in deciding whether to issue a certificate of exemption to a zoo. Moreover, a certificate having been issued, subsection (3) would enable us to withdraw it "at any time". The present powers in Section 9


of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, provide that the
Minister may cause to be treated with serum or vaccine … any animal or bird
which may be within the categories specified in that section. This is considered sufficient to give us adequate discretion for dealing with animals in zoological gardens.
I appreciate the interest that hon. Members have in the survival of these species which can easily be killed, but there is a risk. There is a risk to the animals themselves, and there is a tremendous risk that there could be a huge loss to the nation. I assure all hon. Members that this will not be done recklessly. I do not understand the hon. Member for Gillingham thinking that we are just doing this for the sake of doing it and that we have given the matter no thought. He said that the Government rushed about doing things for the sake of doing them.

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden indicated dissent.

Mr. Mackie: That is what the hon. Gentleman said. We have given considerable thought to this matter. We will consider the matter carefully before acting.
I am sure that, with that assurance and the assurance that under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, we have this discretion, the hon. Member for the City of Chester will not wish to press his new Clause.

Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman will look at HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that it was a general remark which I made to the effect that all Governments nowadays, on too many occasions, come to the House with rules, regulations and legislation, often apparently without good reason; and I wondered whether this was such a case.

Mr. Mackie: That does not apply to this Government.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Temple: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that careful reply to the debate. On both sides of the House, we are genuinely concerned with the welfare of our animals, and particularly the rare animals about which we have been speaking. I was aware

that in certain circumstances the Government have general powers with regard to vaccination. What concerned us, and should still concern us, is that they have no information as yet about how to deal with rare and exotic species.
The Parliamentary Secretary has given an assurance that his experimental stations will look into the matter, but I must warn him that my advice is that this is a complex and difficult business. Each species will have to be examined over a long time, a period of years, and a situation might well come upon us in which vaccination had to be done at a moment's notice because a zoo was within a ring. No one can anticipate where or when the next outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease will come.
At this stage, all we can do is press the Government as hard as we can to ensure that they are in a state of readiness, with their veterinary officers equipped with the necessary information for carrying out with the utmost humanity the job which will fall upon them of vaccinating in an emergency.

Sir F. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend tell us of any case in recent years when an infection has derived from or extended into an enclosed zoo? The Minister was asked that question but he did not answer it.

Mr. Temple: I can assure my hon. Friend that there have been no cases——

Mr. Mackie: Mr. Mackie indicated assent.

Mr. Temple: The Government now confirm that there have been no cases within zoological gardens.

Mr. Mackie: I had quite a lot to answer, and I am sorry that I forgot to mention that there had been no cases in this country within living memory, though there have been cases abroad.

Mr. Temple: I am obliged for the various interventions. I am advised that there has been very little experimental work done in other countries, so that if the hon. Gentleman is to communicate with countries abroad he will find the cupboard almost bare of information. As I say, I believe that this work will be extraordinarily costly, it will present extreme veterinary difficulties, and it will take a considerable time.
We have made our point by bringing the matter before the House tonight. I hope that the Government are now seized of the difficulties and that they will take the appropriate action.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: We have had a number of major debates on a series of very important subjects today. Unfortunately, we lost an hour or more at the start, but we have had debates of enormous value and have cleared up a number of important points.
We shall be meeting after the Easter Recess for debates on the remaining new Clauses and Amendments, and I understand that we shall also have the Third Reading in one sitting. Bearing that in mind, I move this Motion. I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Motion made, and Question proposea, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am glad that the Minister without Portfolio and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons is joining me in my penance and the punishment I am inflicting on both myself and him at this late hour. I do not know whether he is more surprised to be replying or that he was brought into the Cabinet to advise on election strategy on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has chosen a subject for the debate. I hope that he will talk about it.

Mr. Lewis: When I selected this subject there was some doubt whether it was acceptable because of the question of Ministerial responsibility. I said that there was an overall responsibility of someone for the Government, and I did not mind whether it was the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or his deputy.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman, as Deputy Leader of the House, would agree that the whole subject of Question Time is important, because it should be the most compelling of all the parts of our procedure. It has everything—local and national impact; confrontation with the Executive, which is its purpose; high drama and excitement; and the straight-forward but important probing by one hon. Member of another who happens to be a Minister. Yet many people have said in recent years that Question Time is losing its impact. If that is so, and if it is allowed to be so, it is a serious matter and should concern the right hon. Gentleman.
The Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, 1966–67, dealt with Questions. I want only briefly to deal with two matters mentioned in its report—the transfer of Questions by one Minister to another and the answering together of two Questions put by one hon. Member. I am not satisfied that the transfer of Questions is not a delaying ploy by Ministers. Sometimes Ministers have a split responsibility. Departments edge up on one another. Therefore, sometimes one Minister can as well


answer as another. If a Question is transferred late to another Minister when it need not be, the Member concerned has lost his place in the queue of Questions. The Minister gains an advantage, because it is virtually certain that that Question gets a Written Answer. There is too much delay in this transfer and too much unnecessary transfer. If the Table Office can give us a quick decision, so also should the Minister with all the staff behind him. The Table Office serves the House and its Members splendidly. It can show the Executive how to move quickly in the interests of democracy.
My second point is the practice of answering one Member's two Questions together. This is growing, and in recent weeks I have seen at least three or four examples. If a Member wishes to use up his two-Question allowance by putting Questions with a slight variation, that is a matter for him. He should at least receive two answers so that he can put two supplementaries. After all, he is only allowed two Questions. Ministers should not put together Questions tabled by hon. Members even if they are similar. My main complaint is the failure of Ministers to give adequate answers. Too frequently answers are evasive, indifferent, slippery, noncommittal, unforthcoming and defensive. This is no help to democracy.
I remember the present Secretary of State for Social Services when Leader of the House arriving at his position with a special theme song, that he wanted to strengthen Parliament against the Executive. It was a good motto for any Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is now in a different job, and even his hon. Friends are disenchanted with the way he answers Questions. In The Guardian last week, on 20th March, there was an item which said:
Labour M.P.s Policy Group"—
I believe that the chairman is the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman)—
on Mental Health criticised the Government for its failure to give adequate answers to questions. They said first that answers were too long, second the figures were not available and third the information was not given.
If that is what hon. Members opposite think, what about the Opposition? Some of the answers which we get are very interesting. They are repeated by Ministers, as can be seen when looking through

HANSARD. The first answer is, "I refer the hon. Member to an answer I gave on such-and-such a date to another hon. Member." I thought that the best reply to that was made by the late Sir Cyril Osborne, who said, "I cannot remember the answer given to my hon. Friend and, therefore, the answer I have had is useless and stupid." Ministers continue to do this.
Then there is the retort of many Ministers who do not know the answer. They say, "That supplementary question is really not for my right hon. Frien". There are other Ministers who say, "I require notice of that question"—as though they have not already had notice, three weeks or so. Some Ministers reply, "This is being kept under constant review". The matters that this Government are keeping under constant review must lead to dispatch boxes being filled with papers. Again there is the answer, "I have nothing to add," or "I am setting up a committee". There must be dozens of committees sitting in Whitehall, set up in response to Questions because a Minister did not know the answer. There must be many people discussing something or nothing. No one remembers them, and presumably they fade away.
There is an old formula of the House which I find looking through HANSARD is being used more and more. It is:
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.
It is a good test of any Government to see how often this formula is used. Of course, if Members actually followed through that formula and were to have Adjournment debates there would be such a queue that I certainly would not be having this opportunity tonight.
I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman's reactions would be if some of the answers given in the House by his colleagues were to be given to him in private conversation. Probably, if he got such answers, he would think the persons giving them must be slightly touched.
There was a Minister who was asked about the import of food, and replied, "I have repeatedly emphasised the value I attach to import saving". He ought to talk to my potato farmers in the middle of June when potatoes start coming in and the Government do nothing about it.
There was a Question about renegotiating the Nassau Agreement, and the Minister replied, "When the time comes when conditions are appropriate we will negotiate".
There is also the Minister who says he has nothing to add to the answer already given to a Question, when the previous answer said he had nothing to say anyway.
A Minister of Health was asked to introduce regulations against smoking. He might have thought himself Leader of the House, for he answered, "Not this Session".
The Secretary of State for Education, who likes to be short, when asked what local authorities should do to eliminate classes more than 40 in number, replied, "Any action within the resources available", knowing perfectly well that there were no resources available.
There are two common practices of Ministers which are particularly to be deprecated. One is stalling hon. Members who put down Questions by answering by Written Answer. This is particularly bad when a Question deals with a regional or local matter, but it happens a good deal. I have had complaints from the other side of the House as well as my own about this. An hon. Member follows a subject through, putting down Question after Question. Suddenly the Minister gives a Written Answer to somebody else, or perhaps makes a statement in the House without notice to the hon. Member particularly concerned.
The second particularly bad but common practice is giving half an Answer in the House and the best half to the Press—before the other half is given in the House. It is surprising how often the Press know an answer before we do. That really cannot be very good for the image of the House of Commons. Yesterday the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said telephone charges were to go, but he was very coy about by how much they are to go up. I hope that information does not come out in the middle of the Easter Recess when we are not here. That sort of thing has happened before. We have tried to get answers on the Floor of the House and not succeeded and then suddenly, when we have been away, Eureka!—the Minister has given the answer. Increases

in postal charges are coming. When are they coming? I hope the answer will be given on the Floor of the House.
We had the Donnison Report today on direct grant schools. I have had several Questions asking when this report would be published. I found out—outside the House and so did other hon. Members and when we were eventually told by the Minister—upstairs—we knew about it already. That is not the way to treat the House of Commons.
Then there is the situation in which a Minister says one thing and another contradicts it, the Government just not knowing what, as a team, they are doing. The Foreign Secretary a few weeks ago said he was discussing the arrangement of foreign aid with the Governments of Uganda and Kenya on the basis that they help with the Asians holding British passports. So I put a Question to the Minister of Overseas Development about it, and the Minister said this was not possible, that it was quite improper that we should use foreign aid for political purposes. The Foreign Secretary had better get together with the Minister for Overseas Development. I should have thought that my proposal would appeal to the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), and I wonder whether the Government's left hand knows what their right foot is doing.
Sometimes, answers are plainly misleading. Time after time we were told that there was nothing wrong with the Redundancy Fund, until a special Order was brought in by the Minister to bolster it up and we were promised legislation to deal with the anomalies, which, it had been said, did not exist.
The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has said a great deal about how she will help the lower-paid workers. She said in the House that she hoped to get relationships between different pay structures at a more socially justifiable level. What is happening in her Department is that those workers who are——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was this in answer to an hon. Member's Question?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What is happening is that pay rises are going up and the right hon. Lady's policy, which she announced on the Floor of the


House in answer to a Question, is simply not capable of being implemented.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has told me of a Question which he tabled to the President of the Board of Trade asking about the increase in the price of the Daily Telegraph. In February, the President of the Board of Trade said that the Government would try to restrict the increase in price. He repeated that, and, again in February, he said that the Government agreed with the Prices and Incomes Board Report and would deal with the proposed increase in the price of the Daily Telegraph during 1970. On 13th March, the Minister finally admitted that he could only try to persuade the Daily Telegraph to observe whatever the Prices and Incomes Board said and whatever the Minister wanted to do about what the board said, because the policy was voluntary.
We were told that that the Industrial Training Act was working well. Within a few weeks we had a new Industrial Training Bill.
Finally, we have Questions to the Prime Minister. Everybody comes in to hear the Prime Minister. The Galleries are always full, much fuller than I notice they are tonight to hear——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not, even indirectly, call attention to the presence or absence of strangers.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise.
The Prime Minister's answers to Questions——

Mr. John Ellis: They are very good.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman always answers the first Question very well. After that, he gets verbal diarrhoea. The Prime Minister answers Questions very well, except for one thing. He takes up more space in HANSARD on each Question than any other occupant of the Treasury Bench. He tries to cover up the Government's failures with verbiage.

Mr. Ellis: Nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: It is not. If the hon. Member looks at HANSARD, he will see

that the Prime Minister takes up whole columns whereas other hon. Members take up half-inches. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition does not get a look in compared with—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Too much turbulence from Bristol.

Mr. Lewis: —the Prime Minister in the extent of his answers. My right hon. Friend gets up and makes a brief comment which devastates the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister answers by giving us a very long dissertation. That is why the Prime Minister hardly answers more than five Questions during his quarter of an hour.
This subject must fascinate the House, as it fascinates me. We have with us tonight the Deputy Leader of the House to listen to what I say, and I hope that he will be able to answer my comments to everybody's satisfaction.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will give the Minister time to answer.

Mr. Lewis: I am coming to an end, Mr. Speaker. The Government's answers leave much to be desired. Now that we are coming to an election, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will advise his right hon. Friends, at least on accasion, to come clean.

12.55 a.m.

The Minister without Portfolio and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Shore): The fact that I have only 10 minutes left in which to answer the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) illustrates the sort of difficulty which Ministers sometimes have in answering Questions. Time is not always on their side, and they have to make the best of the opportunities left to them.
When I first saw the subject of the Adjournment I felt that I would have some difficulty because of the very wideness of its terms. As written, it embraced all Ministers and all Questions, and it could be argued that if it were to be dealt with in the terms in which it was written, each Minister would have to defend or explain what he had said in answering Questions, and that would clearly be ludicrous. Although I am here to reply on behalf of my colleagues, I


have no doubt that they would all welcome the opportunity individually to rebut the charges which the hon. Member has made against them collectively and individually.
I have no intention of attempting to reply in detail about the way in which my colleagues deal with Questions. They are capable of looking after themselves. The hon. Member can take it, however, that what he has said will be drawn to their attention, although I should have thought that he had ample opportunity both inside and outside the Chamber to pursue what he has described as the inadequate replies to Questions with the Ministers involved.
I agree with the hon. Member that Question Time is of crucial significance in enabling hon. Members to call on members of the Government to account for their actions. It is a great institution which is near to the heart of our democratic practice and which the House rightly regards with jealousy and pride. I assure the hon. Member that the Government are no less aware of what Question Time stands for, and collectively and individually are no less concerned than he is to ensure its continued effectiveness.
As the hon. Member will know from his discussions with individual Ministers, all of them spend a great deal of time and energy replying to Parliamentary Questions, and I can assure him that the Departments also take seriously the Questions put to their Ministers. Knowing this, I regard the terms of the subject of the Adjournment debate as unjustified criticism of my colleagues. I do not say that in any spirit of animosity, but simply to record the way in which I as an hon. Member and as a member of the Government approach these issues.
The hon. Member made two or three points with which I must try to deal in the time available to me. I do not agree that Question Time is losing its impact, and I do not accept that the practice of transferring Questions or that of answering two or more together is in any sense an abuse or a ploy used somehow to deprive hon. Members of their opportunities to ask Questions. If he is being fair, the hon. Member will agree that there is always a problem, that one Question inevitably takes away the time available for another. Therefore, if two Questions which are similar

can be dealt with in a single answer, that will not relieve the Minister of his duty to answer Questions, but it will make it possible for another hon. Member to put a Question which might not otherwise have had a chance of being asked. So we can seriously put those points aside.
I want now to take up what the hon. Gentleman said and the enormous collection of adjectives that he deployed about answers which he claims have been unsatisfactory. I will not attempt to repeat them. They are on the record. When he came to illustrate the charges which he levelled, they were not very convincing. I will not break my promise not to take up individual cases, but, if I did, I am certain that I could give him convincing replies on the matters that he has put forward.
Certainly I put to the hon. Member strongly that it is not that Ministers seek to mislead the House. There are occasions when the flow of information or the development of policy has not reached the point where a definite answer can be given. It is because of this that the hon. Gentleman gets what he may think is a cautious, hedging or reserved reply. There is nothing new in that. I think that it was Queen Elizabeth who, when faced with a difficult question, said to the questioner, "I must give you an answer, answerless", because she could say neither "Yes" nor "No". That is often the situation in which Ministers find themselves when answering Questions.
Lastly, I take up what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He left that to the end, no doubt because he thought that it was the more explosive piece of his speech. I note what he said. I think that the House looks forward to Question Time not only because of its liveliness but because hon. Members know that they will get from my right hon. Friend an enormous amount of information.
The hon. Gentleman thinks that my right hon. Friend makes long replies. That may be so, although he speaks at great speed and gets in a lot of words in a short space of time. My right hon. Friend's motive is the pursuit of truth and the desire to combat error. In the exchanges which he has across the Floor of the House it is important that he should do both and continue to do them twice a week for at least 15 minutes in


order that the truth may be properly identified. It is not always easy in the arguments that take place.
Some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks were made in a fairly light-hearted spirit, although the more important parts of his speech were argued with seriousness, so I bring my reply to a conclusion by reminding him that if Ministers occasionally have failed to give just the right reply or the definition of reply that he would like, he should see it against the background of Ministers having answered some 6,850 Questions since 19th January this

year. That is quite a background of information being given to the House. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only in Ministerial attitudes to answering Questions but in the whole attitude of this Government to Parliament we are very much concerned to see that hon. Members get as much information as possible and as helpfully as we can possibly provide it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past One o'clock.